Loading...
05 May 21, 2012 Western Riverside County Programs and ProjectsComments are welcomed by the Committee. If you wish to provide comments to the Committee, please complete and submit a Speaker Card to the Clerk of the Board. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA TIME: 1:30 p.m. DATE: Monday, May 21, 2012 LOCATION: CONFERENCE ROOM A PLEASE NOTE LOCATION CHANGE County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor, Riverside  COMMITTEE MEMBERS  Adam Rush, Chair / Ike Bootsma, City of Eastvale Andrew Kotyuk, Vice Chair / Scott Miller, City of San Jacinto Bob Botts / Don Robinson, City of Banning Karen Spiegel / Eugene Montanez, City of Corona Frank Johnston / Micheal Goodland, City of Jurupa Valley Darcy Kuenzi / Wallace Edgerton, City of Menifee Marcelo Co / Richard Stewart, City of Moreno Valley Berwin Hanna / Kathy Azevedo, City of Norco Daryl Busch / Al Landers, City of Perris Ben Benoit / Timothy Walker, City of Wildomar Bob Buster, County of Riverside, District I Marion Ashley, County of Riverside, District V  STAFF  Anne Mayer, Executive Director John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director  AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY  Air Quality, Capital Projects, Communications and Outreach Programs, Intermodal Programs, Motorist Services, New Corridors, Regional Agencies/Regional Planning, Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), Specific Transit Projects, State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program, and Provide Policy Direction on Transportation Programs and Projects related to Western Riverside County and other areas as may be prescribed by the Commission. Alexandra Rackerby From: Alexandra Rackerby Sent: To: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 5:31 PM Alexandra Rackerby Subject: RCTC Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee -lpad Compatible Users Good Morning Commissioners, The Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee agenda for Monday May 21, 2012 is posted on our Website at http://www.rctc.org/uploads/media items/western-riverside-county-programs-and- projects-march-26-2012-l.origina l.pdf Let me if you have any questions or concerns. Thank you. Respectfully, Allie Rackerby Riverside County Transportation Commission (951) 787-7141 1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE www.rctc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 1:30 p.m. Monday, May 21, 2012 CONFERENCE ROOM A County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor Riverside, California In compliance with the Brown Act and Government Code Section 54957.5, agenda materials distributed 72 hours prior to the meeting, which are public records relating to open session agenda items, will be available for inspection by members of the public prior to the meeting at the Commission office, 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor, Riverside, CA, and on the Commission’s website, www.rctc.org. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954.2, if you need special assistance to participate in a Committee meeting, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (951) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS – Each individual speaker is limited to speak three (3) continuous minutes or less. The Committee may, either at the direction of the Chair or by majority vote of the Committee, waive this three minute time limitation. Depending on the number of items on the Agenda and the number of speakers, the Chair may, at his/her discretion, reduce the time of each speaker to two (2) continuous minutes. Also, the Committee may terminate public comments if such comments become repetitious. In addition, the maximum time for public comment for any individual item or topic is thirty (30) minutes. Speakers may not yield their time to others without the consent of the Chair. Any written documents to be distributed or presented to the Committee shall be submitted to the Clerk of the Board. This policy applies to Public Comments and comments on Agenda Items. Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee May 21, 2012 Page 2 Under the Brown Act, the Board should not take action on or discuss matters raised during public comment portion of the agenda which are not listed on the agenda. Board members may refer such matters to staff for factual information or to be placed on the subsequent agenda for consideration. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – APRIL 23, 2012 6. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS (The Committee may add an item to the Agenda after making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to the attention of the Committee subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Committee. If there are less than 2/3 of the Committee members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.) 7. STATE ROUTE 91 PROJECT AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES Page 1 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 09-31-081-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 09-31-081-00, with Parsons Transportation Group, Inc. (Parsons) to provide additional services for Phase 1 of the SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR-91 CIP) widening and extension of the 91 Express Lanes in the amount of $18,434,545, plus a contingency of $1,850,000, for a total amount not to exceed $20,284,545, and a total authorized contract value of $60,084,545; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; 3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve contingency work as may be required for the project; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. 8. STATE ROUTE 91 DESIGN-BUILD PROCUREMENT Page 7 Overview This item is for the Committee to: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee May 21, 2012 Page 3 1) Authorize staff, subject to approval by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), to issue a request for proposal (RFP) and future addenda for design-build services in accordance with Public Contract Code sections 6800 et seq. for the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR-91 CIP) to the four pre-qualified design-build teams; 2 Approve the selection criteria and process for selection of the pre-qualified firm providing the best-value to the Commission, otherwise known as apparent best value (ABV) proposer; 3) Authorize the Executive Director to select the three top-ranked ABV Proposers for design-build services, based on the criteria and selection procedures identified in the RFP and any addendum(s) thereto, and subsequently to conduct limited negotiations with the top-ranked ABV proposer; 4) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to negotiate with the second-ranked ABV proposer if negotiations fail with the top-ranked ABV proposer and with the third-ranked ABV proposer should negotiations fail with both the top-ranked and second-ranked ABV proposers; 5) Authorize the Executive Director to issue a request for a best and final offer (BAFO) to the proposers if found to be in the best interests of the Commission, to make changes to the RFP, solicit BAFOs from proposers, evaluate revised proposals, select an ABV proposer, negotiate with the top-ranked proposer and second and third-ranked if necessary, and make a recommendation of contract award based upon the revised proposals in accordance with 23 CFR Part 636; 6) Authorize the Executive Director to return to the Commission with a recommendation to award a contract for design-build services. The recommendation shall be accompanied by a written decision supporting the recommendation and stating the basis for the award; 7) Authorize the Executive Director to pay a stipend to unsuccessful proposers that meet the RFP criteria for stipend payment up to $650,000 per unsuccessful proposers or a total not to exceed of $2.6 million for all unsuccessful proposers after final action by the Commission on the RFP; 8) Approve that particular materials, products, or services that are elements of the proposed design-build services for the SR-91 CIP are to be designated in the RFP by specific brand names or trade names to match and be interoperable with other products used by the Commission and other related facilities as authorized by Public Contracts Code, section 3400(b); and 9) Forward to the Commission for final action. Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee May 21, 2012 Page 4 9. RCTC 91 EXPRESS LANES TOLL POLICY Page 22 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Adopt Resolution 12-019, “Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Regarding the RCTC 91 Express Lanes Toll Policy”; 2) Adopt the Riverside County 91 Express Lanes Extension Investment Grade Study (Traffic and Revenue Study); and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 10. STATE ROUTE 91 HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE PROJECT COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT AMENDMENT Page 42 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Reprogram federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds from construction savings to cover the increase in Caltrans’ expenditures for the plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E) related to the State Route 91 high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes project; 2) Approve Agreement No. 06-31-062-02, Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. 06-31-062-00, to increase funding by the amount of $1,225,534 for the PS&E phase for the SR-91 HOV lanes project; 3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee May 21, 2012 Page 5 11. STATE ROUTE 60 TRUCK CLIMBING/DESCENDING LANE PROJECT – PROJECT APPROVAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT Page 44 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Agree to sponsor the project approval and environmental document (PA&ED) phase of the State Route 60 truck climbing lane project; 2) Approve the programming of Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) funds in the amount of $3,006,000 for PA&ED; 3) Approve Cooperative Agreement No. 12-31-092-00 with Caltrans for the PA&ED phase for the SR-60 truck climbing lane project; 4) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; 5) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute any future non-funding related amendments; and 6) Forward to the Commission for final action. 12. CITY OF CORONA FUNDING REQUEST FOR FOOTHILL PARKWAY Page 69 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve programming $7 million of Western County’s 2009 Measure A Regional Arterial (MARA) funds as local match to $7 million of Proposition 1B State-Local Partnership Program (SLPP) formula funds for the city of Corona’s (Corona) Foothill Parkway westerly extension project; 2) Submit the Foothill Parkway project nomination forms for SLPP funding of $7 million to the California Transportation Commission; 3) Approve Agreement No. 12-72-093-00 with Corona to program $7 million in MARA funds; 4) Approve reprogramming approximately $7 million of TUMF regional arterial funds from Foothill Parkway right of way phase to the construction phase; 5) Approve Agreement No. 06-72-540-03, Amendment No. 3 to Agreement No. 06-72-540-00, with Corona to reflect the reprogramming of right of way savings to construction; 6) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements; and 7) Forward to the Commission for final action. Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee May 21, 2012 Page 6 13. PROPOSED METROLINK BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012/13 Page 73 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Adopt the preliminary FY 2012/13 Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) operating and capital budget with anticipation of a 5 to 9 percent fare increase; 2) Approve the additional Inland Empire Orange County (IEOC) service with an additional peak period round trip and expanded year round weekend service; 3) Allocate the Commission’s funding commitment to the SCRRA in an amount not to exceed of $7,575,300 in Local Transportation Fund (LTF) funds for train operations and maintenance of way plus a contingency of $2,424,700 in LTF funds for new service options and $250,000 for capital projects to be funded by State Transit Assistance funds; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. 14. FISCAL YEAR 2012/13 MEASURE A COMMUTER ASSISTANCE BUSPOOL SUBSIDY FUNDING CONTINUATION REQUESTS Page 79 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Authorize payment of $1,645/month maximum subsidy per buspool for the period July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013, to the existing Corona, Mira Loma, and Riverside buspools; 2) Require subsidy recipients to meet monthly buspool reporting requirements as supporting documentation to receive payments; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 15. IOWA AVENUE GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT Page 86 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Allocate $500,000 in federal Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) funds to the city of Riverside (Riverside) to provide a match, if needed, in support of the Iowa Avenue grade separation project; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee May 21, 2012 Page 7 16. COMMISSIONERS / STAFF REPORT Overview This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and staff to report on attended and upcoming meeting/conferences and issues related to Commission activities. 17. ADJOURNMENT AND NEXT MEETING The next Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee meeting is scheduled to be held at 1:30 p.m., Monday, June 25, 2012, Board Chambers, First Floor, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE ROLL CALL MAY 21, 2012 Present County of Riverside, District I County of Riverside, District V City of Banning City of Corona City of Eastvale City of Jurupa Valley City of Menifee City of Moreno Valley City of Norco City of Perris City of San Jacinto City of Wildomar - 2i' JZ(' ~ .a-- K :- ~ D J!l Absent D (] D (] D (] D (] D (] 71' (] RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS SIGN-IN SHEET MAY 21, 2012 '7 / NAME .c. AGENCY E MAIL ADDRESS /-ftf17 /;72-/(' ~5// /4:>;/U?/P IJ-~w 'ji.J I ,':1 thu JVlf ~~WJ l~o~ \~ o\"\s (, h a{' f?::>A-:NJ.h' Na ~ vuJc.. ::1.,-Ltn , .. 1~ ..._ ~f»YVA~A VCvifL~ J 1)/J 1/v //l:";fr at//", ~1&0/'flf4 ( Yn aAru.io _(~ 71JlJJ/~ 1/a_Lf,t,A v l( 1)_,._. "'.,0 tff' (r{.. "'.Af'D_L ( . {fr' .eUa/\ J ~ \ l<IALfl7_~' '"~,1-cf "-/ /G, /It/?. I cr.Ml !"+<I 1-/-( ~ f f> IV-C /"'t_ #:. .\ ' AGENDA ITEM 5 MINUTES RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE Monday, April 23, 2012 MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee was called to order by Chair Adam Rush at 1:33 p.m., in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, California, 92501. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At this time, Commissioner Bob Botts led the Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee in a flag salute. 3. ROLL CALL Members/Alternates Present Members Absent Marion Ashley Daryl Busch Ben Benoit Bob Buster Bob Botts Marcelo Co Berwin Hanna Frank Johnston Andrew Kotyuk Darcy Kuenzi Adam Rush Karen Spiegel 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no requests to speak from the public. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – MARCH 26, 2012 M/S/C (Hanna/Ashley) to approve the minutes as submitted. RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes April 23, 2012 Page 2 6. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS There were no additions or revisions to the agenda. At this time, Commissioner Karen Spiegel arrived at the meeting. 7. CONSTRUCTION CHANGE ORDER POLICIES Marlin Feenstra, Project Delivery Director, presented the construction change order policies. At Commissioner Botts’ request, Marlin Feenstra explained why this item was brought forward for review. M/S/C (Kuenzi/Spiegel) to: 1) Review the Commission’s existing change order procedure; 2) Require committee action when contract change orders exceed the previously-approved contingency; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 8. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE FOR THE STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Dave Thomas, Toll Program Manager, presented an overview of the agreement with the county of Riverside for the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR-91 CIP). M/S/C (Kotyuk/Kuenzi) to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 12-31-080-00, a cooperative agreement between the Commission and the county of Riverside (County) related to the SR-91 CIP; 2) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes April 23, 2012 Page 3 9. AGREEMENT WITH JACOBS PROJECT MANAGEMENT CO. FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH CALTRANS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE INTERSTATE 215 CENTRAL WIDENING PROJECT FROM SCOTT ROAD TO NUEVO ROAD, IN THE CITY OF PERRIS At this time, Commissioner Marion Ashley recused himself due to conflict of interest for this agenda item and Agenda Item 10 and left the meeting. Lisa DaSilva, Capital Projects Manager, presented an overview of the agreement with Jacobs Project Management Co. for construction management services and cooperative agreement with Caltrans for construction of the I-215 Central widening project from Scott Road to Nuevo Road, in the city of Perris. In response to Commissioner Andrew Kotyuk’s question regarding the use of photographs for cross-section analysis, Anne Mayer, Executive Director, stated the data being collected demonstrates what is actually being built. Pictures do not demonstrate the cross section was built to plan. Commissioner Kotyuk then discussed the benefits of photographs and asked staff to consider adding photographs as part of the survey deliverable. In response to Commissioner Kotyuk’s safety concerns, Lisa DaSilva stated all OSHA standards are followed and the items listed as part of the staff report are additional items staff would like the contractor to focus on. M/S/C (Kuenzi/Botts) to: 1) Award Agreement No. 12-31-034-00 to Jacobs Project Management Co. (Jacobs) to provide construction management (CM) services, materials testing, and construction surveying for the I-215 central widening project, Scott Road to Nuevo Road, in the city of Perris, in the amount of $11,807,334, plus a contingency amount of $1,192,666, for a total amount not to exceed $13 million; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; 3) Authorize the Executive Director to approve contingency work as may be required for the project; 4) Approve Cooperative Agreement No. 12-31-078-00 with Caltrans for construction of the project; RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes April 23, 2012 Page 4 5) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the cooperative agreement and future non- funding related amendments to this agreement; and 6) Forward to the Commission for final action. 10. INTERSTATE 215 SCOTT ROAD TO NUEVO ROAD – UTILITY AGREEMENTS AND CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT Mark Lancaster, Interim Right of Way Manager, presented the scope of the utility agreements and construction and maintenance agreement for properties along the I-215 Central widening project. In response to Commissioner Kotyuk’s question regarding excavation, Mark Lancaster stated there is a paleontological monitoring plan. Anne Mayer added that those areas where subsurface artifacts would likely be found would be identified in the environmental document. At Chair Rush’s request, Anne Mayer discussed the funding for the projects, specifically focusing on the Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA) and State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funding. M/S/C (Kuenzi/Benoit) to: 1) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the utility agreements related to the I-215 Scott Road to Nuevo Road Central widening project on behalf of the Commission; 2) Approve Agreement No. 12-31-082-00 with Caltrans for construction and maintenance of the Ethanac Overhead Bridge; 3) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute Agreement No. 12-31-082-00 on behalf of the Commission; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes April 23, 2012 Page 5 11. AGREEMENT WITH HDR CONSTRUCTION CONTROL CORPORATION FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE INTERSTATE 215/BLAINE STREET TO MARTIN LUTHER KING BOULEVARD WIDENING PROJECT Patti Castillo, Capital Projects Manager, presented the scope of the agreement with HDR Construction Control Corporation for construction management services for the construction of the I-215/Blaine Street to Martin Luther King Boulevard widening project. M/S/C (Benoit/Johnston) to: 1) Award Agreement No. 12-31-057-00 to HDR Construction Control Corporation (HDR) to provide construction management (CM), materials testing, and construction surveying services for the Interstate 215/Blaine Street to Martin Luther King Boulevard widening project, in the amount of $218,731, plus a contingency amount of $21,873, for a total amount not to exceed $240,604; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; 3) Authorize the Executive Director to approve contingency work as may be required for the project; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. 12. AMENDMENT WITH STV, INCORPORATED FOR FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION COORDINATION AND SMALL STARTS SUPPORT FOR THE PERRIS VALLEY LINE Cathy Bechtel, Project Development Director, presented an overview of the scope of the amendment with STV, Incorporated for Federal Transit Administration (FTA) coordination and Small Starts program support for the Perris Valley Line. In response to Chair Rush’s question regarding the additional work by STV, Cathy Bechtel stated the additional reports were requested by FTA, noting significant additional work was required for level boarding. Anne Mayer provided additional details regarding level boarding. RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes April 23, 2012 Page 6 M/S/C (Johnston/Spiegel) to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 08-33-069-03, Amendment No. 3 to Agreement 08-33-069-00, with STV Incorporated (STV) for additional assistance with Federal Transit Administration (FTA) coordination and Small Starts program support for the Perris Valley Line project in the amount of $115,000, for a total contract amount of $315,709; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 13. PERRIS VALLEY LINE – UTILITY AGREEMENTS Mark Lancaster presented the utility agreements related to the Perris Valley Line project. M/S/C (Hanna/Kotyuk) to: 1) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the utility agreements related to the Perris Valley Line commuter rail project on behalf of the Commission; 2) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the utility service agreements related to the Perris Valley Line commuter rail project on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 14. AGREEMENT FOR THE OPERATION OF THE FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL PROGRAM IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY Jillian Edmiston, Staff Analyst, presented the scope of the agreement for the operation of the Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program in Riverside County. In response to Chair Rush’s question regarding phasing out of this program, Anne Mayer clarified that the Commission is scaling back the call box program and expanding the FSP program. At Commissioner Karen Spiegel’s request, Jillian Edmiston provided additional information regarding the agreement funding and program reserves. RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes April 23, 2012 Page 7 M/S/C (Kuenzi/Spiegel) to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 12-45-068-00 with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for the operation of the Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program in the amount of $1,653,564 in state funding for FY 2011/12; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 15. AMENDMENTS TO FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL AGREEMENTS Jillian Edmiston presented an overview of the amendments to the FSP agreements for FSP Beat Nos. 4, 18, and 19. At Chair Rush’s request, Jillian Edmiston explained the reasons for the cost increase for the agreement with Pepe’s Towing for Beat No. 18. M/S/C (Benoit/Johnston) to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 07-45-134-04, Amendment No. 4 to Agreement No. 07-45-134-00, with Pepe’s Towing (Pepe’s) to provide Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) services on Beat No. 18 in the amount of $115,000; 2) Approve Agreement No. 07-45-136-03, Amendment No. 3 to Agreement No. 07-45-136-00, with Pepe’s to provide FSP services on Beat No. 19 in the amount of $200,000; 3) Approve Agreement No. 11-45-146-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 11-45-146-00, with Pepe’s to provide FSP services on Beat No. 4 in the amount of $800,000; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. 16. FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL COST EFFECTIVENESS EVALUATION Jillian Edmiston presented an overview of the FSP cost effectiveness evaluation. At Commissioner Botts’ request, Jillian Edmiston explained the cost benefit ratio, how it is calculated, and the related deliverables of the cost effectiveness evaluation. At Chair Rush’s request, Jillian Edmiston discussed the development process for new FSP beats. RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes April 23, 2012 Page 8 Anne Mayer added that FSP options are being discussed for Coachella Valley. M/S/C (Kotyuk/Johnston) to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 12-45-079-00 with DKS Associates (DKS) to provide a Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) cost effectiveness evaluation in the amount of $25,000; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 17. COMMISSIONERS / STAFF REPORT 17A. Anne Mayer announced:  Due to the Memorial Day holiday, the May Committees are scheduled for May 21, 2012, in RCTC Conference Room A on the Third Floor; and  Due to the Board of Supervisors’ Budget hearing, the June Commission meeting is scheduled for Thursday, June 7, 2012. 18. ADJOURNMENT AND NEXT MEETING There being no further business for consideration by the Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 2:43 p.m. The next meeting of the Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee is scheduled for May 21, 2012, at 9:30 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board AGENDA ITEM 7 Agenda Item 7 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 21, 2012 TO: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee FROM: David Thomas, Toll Project Manager THROUGH: Michael Blomquist, Toll Program Director SUBJECT: State Route 91 Project and Construction Management Services STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 09-31-081-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 09-31-081-00, with Parsons Transportation Group, Inc. (Parsons) to provide additional services for Phase 1 of the SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR-91 CIP) widening and extension of the 91 Express Lanes in the amount of $18,434,545, plus a contingency of $1,850,000, for a total amount not to exceed $20,284,545, and a total authorized contract value of $60,084,545; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; 3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve contingency work as may be required for the project; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final approval. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Due to the passage of the 2009 Measure A extension in 2002, the Commission adopted the 2009 Measure A Western County Highway 10-Year Delivery Plan (10-Year Delivery Plan) in December 2006. In this action, the Commission also directed staff to proceed with development of a project report/environmental document for all the new projects identified in the plan. The SR-91 corridor improvement project (SR-91 CIP) was included in the 10-Year Delivery Plan and given high priority by the Commission. In September 2007, the Commission approved an agreement with PB Americas and authorized staff to proceed with preliminary engineering/environmental services for the SR-91 CIP. This project report/environmental document is currently scheduled to be completed in the summer 2012. 1 Agenda Item 7 In October 2009, the Commission approved an agreement with Parsons to provide design-build services through final design and construction of the SR-91 CIP and authorized staff to proceed with the first work phase – Phase 1 Project and Construction Management (PCM) services – for a not to exceed amount of $39.8 million that includes a contingency amount of $4,260,701. These Phase 1 PCM services included working on interagency agreements, right of way acquisition, utility relocations, advanced final engineering, and procurement of a design-builder. The cost for the Phase 1 PCM Services was based upon a schedule duration of two years. Staff will negotiate a contract amendment with the PCM to provide Phase 2 services to deliver the SR-91 CIP through final engineering, construction, and toll operation start up. Staff will return to the Commission with a contract amendment request to authorize staff to proceed with Phase 2 services. Structuring the work in two phases results in a key decision point for the Commission. Phase 1 covers all work necessary from the PCM prior to the sale of toll revenue and sales tax bonds. The successful sale of toll revenue and sales tax bonds is paramount in order to commence Phase 2 activities. Phase 2 contract authorization could be provided upon a successful sale of toll revenue and sales tax bonds. A two-phase approach allows the Commission to control whether and when to begin Phase 2 activities. The initially assumed two-year duration for the PCM Phase 1 services was based upon the assumption, at that time, that the successful sale of toll revenue and sales tax bonds would occur in fall 2011/winter 2012. There are several factors that caused this duration to extend approximately 18 months to the current scheduled date in July 2013. Among these factors are: 1. Completing environmental approval for the project, which was initially scheduled for the spring/summer of 2011, but now scheduled for the summer of 2012; and 2. Success in obtaining an invitation for Transportation Investment Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) funding, which recently occurred on April 24, 2012, and was the trigger for finalizing the design-build procurement schedule. Staff, working with the PCM team, successfully continued to work beyond the initial two-year duration (approximately nine additional months), keeping within the Commission authorized agreement not to exceed amount. With the successful invitation for the Commission to apply for a TIFIA loan to complete the required funding for the project, staff, on May 7, 2012, invited the four prequalified design- build firms to perform an industry review of the draft request for proposal (RFP) for the SR-91 CIP. This kicked off the process for the final selection of a design- builder for the SR-91 CIP. This process is currently scheduled to be complete in April 2013 with the award of a design-build contract by the Commission. The PCM 2 Agenda Item 7 will be an integral part of this selection process, and this will be a major part of the PCM scope of work for the coming fiscal year. The other main PCM scope of work efforts, over the next year, will include the following items: 1. The continuing work effort involved with right of way acquisition for the project; 2. Coordinating with the five major utilities that are in conflict with the proposed SR-91 CIP improvements for relocation of utilities and procurement of long lead items; 3. Coordinating with the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad for construction and maintenance agreements required to allow access on the BNSF property; and 4. Continued coordination with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and its express lane toll operator, Cofiroute, for planning of the Commission’s integration with the existing facility. The following list is the PCM’s scope summary of Phase 1 services to be continued through the extended Phase 1 duration: 1. Agency Coordination (Federal Highway Administration, Caltrans, Corona, Riverside County, OCTA, resource agencies); 2. Right of Way Acquisition and Mitigation Planning (right of way engineering, appraisals, fee acquisitions, utility easements, relocations, etc.); 3. Railroad Agreements and Utility Relocation (agreements, coordination, and advanced utility relocation plans); 4. Procurement of Design-Builder (industry review, RFP, one-on-one meetings, alternate technical proposals, design-build contract provision input, selection process, contract negotiations, contract award process); 5. Advanced Engineering to Support the RFP and Agreements (Perform limited, advanced engineering in several areas including long lead time bridges, surveying, stage construction, geotechnical explorations/reports, etc. prior to the procurement of a design-builder. Coordinate with existing project approval and environmental document firm(s) as necessary for information and engineering work in support of the design-build RFP); 6. Project Controls and Implementation Planning (schedule, budget, document control system, forecasting, reporting, project management plan, project procedures); 7. Tolling Technology Requirements and Agreements (tolling management plan, systems integration contract, business rules, operations agreement, etc.); and 8. Public Information/Outreach (web sites, public meetings, newsletters, media reports, community outreach presentations, etc.). 3 Agenda Item 7 Staff recommends approval of Agreement No. 09-31-081-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 09-31-081-00, with Parsons to provide additional services for Phase 1 of the SR-91 CIP for an additional amount of $ 18,434,545, plus a contingency of $1,850,000 for a total amount not to exceed $20,284,545. This would bring the total authorized contract value to $60,084,545. Staff further recommends that the Commission authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission and authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve contingency as may be required for the project. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes N/A Year: FY 2012/13 FY 2013/14 Amount: $17,100,000 $3,184,545 Source of Funds: Measure A/debt proceeds Budget Adjustment: No N/A GL/Project Accounting No.: 003028 81601 262 31 81601 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 05/10/12 Attachment: PCM Amendment No. 1 Budget Summary. 4 5/9/2012RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (RCTC)SR91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECTPARSONS (PCM)LIMITED NOTICE TO PROCEED #6 BUDGETFINAL 1 OF 10WBS NumberActivity DescriptionHours Parsons GCAP Arellano HDR Southstar OPC Psomas Cofiroute Total Cost Total Cost by Task TASK 100 - Project Management10101Project ManagementProject Management2,080689,260$ 689,260$ Admin Support3,600292,395$ 292,395$ 10201Project Support0-$ Safety 508,165$ 8,165$ QA/QC508,165$ 8,165$ Insurance0-$ -$ Financing/ Funding Support32074,058$ 74,058$ Agency Support520 120,345$ 120,345$ Right of Way Mitigation Coordination0-$ -$ Partnering0-$ -$ Project Labor Agreement0-$ -$ Process Improvement0-$ -$ Management Startup Support0-$ -$ 11101Risk Management52084,917$ 84,917$ 11301Policies, Plans and Manuals1,300230,557$ 230,557$ 15501Community/Government Relations1,380266,852$ 266,852$ 15601Labor and DBE Compliance1,266142,224$ 142,224$ 1,916,938$ TASK 200 - Planning & Design201 01Planning and Design Management2,080336,359$ 336,359$ 202 01Design Support Activities 2,637293,201$ 293,201$ 203 01Structures (Bridges & Retaining Walls)10024,124$ 24,124$ 204 01Civil (Roadways and Drainage)0-$ -$ 205 01Traffic, MOT, ITS10022,003$ 22,003$ 206 01GeoTechnical Oversight10014,846$ 14,846$ 207 01ITS, Electrical, Lighting0-$ -$ 208 01Landscape and Aesthetics10024,124$ 24,124$ 209 01Roadway Conditions 10031,812$ 31,812$ 210 01 Environmental16223,620$ 23,620$ 21101Permits32042,416$ 42,416$ 21201Utility Management20721,950$ 21,950$ 25101Survey/ROW Engineering6,3721,004,877$ 1,004,877$ 25201R/W Acquisition49,4748,284,368$ 8,284,368$ 25301Utilities Planning10020,113$ 20,113$ 25401Utilities Planning0-$ 25501Geotechnical0-$ 25601Civil (Roadways and Drainage)27044,352$ 44,352$ 25611Roadway Conditions-$ 25701Railroad Coordination823160,327$ 160,327$ 25801ROW - Property Management5,000482,080$ 482,080$ 25811Property Management Costs8,125475,304$ 475,304$ 25821Property Management Costs - Vendor 250,000$ 250,000$ 25901Design Management and Support520110,034$ 110,034$ LNTP 6 Budget - Rev 2 - FINAL.xlsx5 5/9/2012RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (RCTC)SR91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECTPARSONS (PCM)LIMITED NOTICE TO PROCEED #6 BUDGETFINAL 2 OF 10WBS NumberActivity DescriptionHours Parsons GCAP Arellano HDR Southstar OPC Psomas Cofiroute Total Cost Total Cost by Task 11,665,911$ TASK 300 - Tolling & Operations30101Tolling and Operation Planning 4,220669,011$ 669,011$ 35101Tolling and Operation Planning 60109,044$ 109,044$ 35201Operations and Business Planning354 01Tolling and Operations Planning 974144,017$ 144,017$ 922,072$ TASK 400 - Contracts & Procurement40101Contract/Procurement Management2,600419,070$ 419,070$ 40401Request for Proposals (RFP)880203,660$ 203,660$ 45301Request for Proposals (RFP) 1,060224,240$ 224,240$ 846,970$ TASK 500 - Project Controls50101Project Controls Management2,080325,331$ 325,331$ 50201Cost Engineering 2,158183,704$ 183,704$ 50301Scheduling 1,040151,637$ 151,637$ 50401Document Controls Management2,080132,338$ 132,338$ 50501Cost Estimating10421,505$ 21,505$ 814,514$ TASK 600 - Construction Management60101Construction Planning 2,080472,446$ 472,446$ 60201Field Services Support1,040157,289$ 157,289$ 60301ROW Parcel Construction Mitigation2,500539,252$ 539,252$ TASK 700 - Other Direct Cost1,168,987$ ODC's403,480$ 408$ 4,320$ 32,076$ 2,664$ 30,750$ 154,220$ 5,452$ 633,370$ 633,370$ Sub Total 6,021,040$ 142,632$ 271,172$ 680,073$ 22,777$ 9,522,502$ 1,159,097$ 149,468$ 17,968,763$ Sub Mark-Up (4.0% on OPC, 3.5% on others)465,783$ 4,992$ 9,491$ 23,803$ 797$ 380,900$ 40,568$ 5,231$ 465,783$ 465,783$ TOTAL Contract Value by Firm110,5526,486,823$ 142,632$ 271,172$ 680,073$ 22,777$ 9,522,502$ 1,159,097$ 149,468$ 18,434,545$ 18,434,545$ LNTP 6 Budget - Rev 2 - FINAL.xlsx6 AGENDA ITEM 8 Agenda Item 8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 21, 2012 TO: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee FROM: Michael Blomquist, Toll Program Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: State Route 91 Design-Build Procurement STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Authorize staff, subject to approval by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), to issue a request for proposal (RFP) and future addenda for design-build services in accordance with Public Contract Code sections 6800 et seq. for the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR-91 CIP) to the four pre-qualified design-build teams; 2) Approve the selection criteria and process for selection of the pre-qualified firm providing the best-value to the Commission, otherwise known as apparent best value (ABV) proposer; 3) Authorize the Executive Director to select the three top-ranked ABV Proposers for design-build services, based on the criteria and selection procedures identified in the RFP and any addendum(s) thereto, and subsequently to conduct limited negotiations with the top-ranked ABV proposer; 4) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to negotiate with the second-ranked ABV proposer if negotiations fail with the top-ranked ABV proposer and with the third-ranked ABV proposer should negotiations fail with both the top-ranked and second-ranked ABV proposers; 5) Authorize the Executive Director to issue a request for a best and final offer (BAFO) to the proposers if found to be in the best interests of the Commission, to make changes to the RFP, solicit BAFOs from proposers, evaluate revised proposals, select an ABV proposer, negotiate with the top-ranked proposer and second and third-ranked if necessary, and make a recommendation of contract award based upon the revised proposals in accordance with 23 CFR Part 636; 6) Authorize the Executive Director to return to the Commission with a recommendation to award a contract for design-build services. The recommendation shall be accompanied by a written decision supporting the recommendation and stating the basis for the award; 7 Agenda Item 8 7) Authorize the Executive Director to pay a stipend to unsuccessful proposers that meet the RFP criteria for stipend payment up to $650,000 per unsuccessful proposers or a total not to exceed of $2.6 million for all unsuccessful proposers after final action by the Commission on the RFP; 8) Approve that particular materials, products, or services that are elements of the proposed design-build services for the SR-91 CIP are to be designated in the RFP by specific brand names or trade names to match and be interoperable with other products used by the Commission and other related facilities as authorized by Public Contracts Code, section 3400(b); and 9) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Early Development of the SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Subsequent to public ownership of the 91 Express Lanes, Orange and Riverside Counties commissioned a major investment study (MIS) to identify a range of feasible alternatives that would improve mobility between the two counties. This study was initiated in June 2004 and completed in December 2005. Following the MIS, the Commission sponsored a project study report (PSR) to further develop and study the possible addition of one general-purpose lane in each direction. The PSR was approved by Caltrans on December 4, 2006. Simultaneously, the Commission performed an independent feasibility study to determine the financial viability to construct tolled express lanes (TEL) on SR-91 in addition to the general purpose lanes proposed in the PSR. The Commission approved moving forward with environmental studies for TEL on SR-91 on December 13, 2006. The draft environmental document was released for a public review period on May 20, 2011. The public comment period was closed on July 11, 2011. Environmental approval is expected in summer 2012. 10-Year Delivery Plan Measure A was first passed in 1989 with an expiration date of 2009. In 2002, the voters approved a 30-year extension through 2039. At the same meeting in which the Commission approved moving forward with the SR-91 CIP environmental studies, the Commission adopted the 2009 Measure A Western County Highway 10-Year Delivery Plan (10-Year Delivery Plan). The 10-Year Delivery Plan calls for the development of TEL corridors within SR-91 and Interstate 15. Selection of Contracting Method In order to achieve the benefits of the corridor improvements in a timely and most cost effective manner, the SR-91 CIP will be procured and contracted through a 8 Agenda Item 8 single private entity under a competitively bid, best-value, design-build procurement. The decision to proceed with this approach was driven in large part by the financing mechanism, as a design-builder provided fixed-price and schedule help in securing financing through the sale of toll revenue bonds and obtaining a federal loan by providing cost and schedule certainty. Other benefits of the design-build approach include: • Single point of responsibility where the design-builder is responsible for both final design and construction of the SR-91CIP; and • The design-builder assumes the greatest share of risk relating to final design, construction, delivery schedule, and utility relocation, therefore reducing the chance of cost overruns. Opportunities for innovation to reduce cost and schedule can be captured through: o Alternative technical concepts (ATCs) that generally include innovative technical solutions or approaches to perform the work offered during the procurement phase; and o Value engineering during final design and construction. Authority to Use the Design-Build Method of Project Delivery In March 2010, the California Transportation Commission approved the Commission’s use of the design-build method of project delivery for the SR-91 CIP under SB X2 4 and the statewide design-build pilot program. Separately, to minimize the litigation and delay risk of using design-build, the Commission also sought design-build authority through AB 2098 (Miller), which was ultimately passed and signed into law on September 23, 2010. Project Scope Federal design-build contracting regulations allow proceeding with the design-build selection process before environmental approval provided that proposers are informed of the general status of the environmental review, do not assume an unnecessary amount of risk in the event the environmental process results in a significant change, and authorization to proceed with final design, and construction is not issued until environmental approval is granted. Accordingly, the Commission has developed a design-build scope of work consistent with the locally preferred alternative selected by the Commission on July 14, 2010. The SR-91 CIP is generally described as extending the existing 91 Express Lanes into Riverside County and the addition of a general purpose lane in each direction. More specifically the SR-91 CIP improvements include: • Extending the existing 91 Express Lanes east from the Orange/Riverside County line to I-15, a distance of approximately eight miles; • Adding a TEL direct connector to and from I-15, south of SR-91, a distance of approximately three miles; 9 Agenda Item 8 • Adding a general purpose lane in each direction from the 71/91 interchange to I-15; • Reconstruction and geometric improvements to five local interchanges within the city of Corona (Main Street, Grand Avenue, Lincoln Avenue, Maple Street, and Serfas Club/Auto Center Drive); • Addition of auxiliary lanes and other operational improvements; • Installation of a fully automated electronic toll collection and enforcement system; • Reconstruction of impacted city streets, soundwall construction, and aesthetics improvements. Design-Build Procurement The Process The design-builder will be selected using a two-step procurement process, as allowed by federal design-build contracting statutes. The first step consists of short listing or prequalification based on a request for qualifications (RFQ). In accordance with AB 2098, the Commission followed a prequalification process. The second step will consist of the receipt and evaluation of price and technical proposals in response to a RFP. Award will be based upon a best-value determination with criteria established in the RFP. In addition to the two-step process, the Commission added an additional step to enhance the design-build procurement. This initial step asked for submission of a request for expression of interest (RFEI) and was an initial outreach effort to inform and solicit interest from the contracting community. The RFEI is not a prerequisite to participate in the two-step selection process. The RFEI was issued on June 30, 2010 with 17 responses received on July 12, 2010. Request for Qualifications Very soon after passage of AB 2098, staff issued the RFQ for design-build services. On October 21, 2010, the Commission received five statements of qualifications (SOQs) in response to the RFQ. A selection team of staff and agency partners reviewed the SOQ’s and performed a comprehensive evaluation. On January 5, 2011, the Commission announced the prequalification of the following four design-build teams: • Atkinson/Walsh, a Joint Venture • The Kiewit Team • Flatiron/Skanska/Rados, a Joint Venture • Shimmick Construction Company, Inc./ Obayashi Corp./ FNF Construction, Inc. 10 Agenda Item 8 Attachment 1 includes a comprehensive listing of the four design-build teams. Industry Review Staff waited to start the second step until more certainty was obtained regarding environmental approvals and project funding. On May 7, 2012 staff issued the draft RFP to the four pre-qualified teams. The purpose of this step, called the industry review, is to allow the four pre-qualified teams an opportunity to comment on the draft RFP before finalization. The draft RFP included the following documents: • Instructions to Proposers • Design-Build Contract • Technical Provisions • Reference Documents Industry review of a draft RFP provides the Commission the benefit of the design- builder perspective and a forum for discussion of a design-builder’s innovative approaches. The industry review process also provides an opportunity for the design-builders to identify particular specifications or requirements that may drive costs higher, and/or identify requirements that are potential deal killers or that might force otherwise highly qualified design-build teams to drop out of the procurement. The industry review process typically results in improved procurement documents for an owner and reduced contingency pricing in a design- builder’s bid. The industry review process concludes upon issuance of the final RFP. DISCUSSION: Issuance of the Design-Build Final RFP With environmental approval expected to occur Summer 2012, coupled with the recent invitation to submit a federal TIFIA loan application – the final piece to completely fund the SR-91 CIP – staff is recommending proceeding with release of the final RFP, subject to approval by Caltrans and FHWA. A graphic illustration of the subsequent timeline, including required Commission actions, is depicted in Attachment 2. The final RFP will contain input from the design-build teams received through the industry review process in the form of written comments and/or meetings held with each design-build team. The comments received will be evaluated and incorporated as appropriate into the final RFP. 11 Agenda Item 8 Selection Process The process to determine the ABV proposer through a best-value design-build procurement for the SR-91 CIP has been established by the Commission and its consultants in accordance with federal requirements 23 CFR 636 and state requirements through AB 2098. Generally, under a best-value selection process, each proposer submits technical and financial proposals. The proposals are then evaluated and scored on three primary factors: 1) bid price; 2) proposed completion schedule; and 3) technical concepts and approach to the project. The weighting of each factor is determined prior to issuing the RFP. The scored factors are then combined using the predetermined weighting to derive the highest score and the ABV proposer. Specifically, the selection process commences once the Commission has received the proposals from the four pre-qualified firms. The steps to selection of the ABV proposer and the award of a design-build contract are as follows: 1) The proposals are received from the prequalified proposers and are logged in and stored in a secure location; 2) The proposals are then separated into two components, financial proposals and technical proposals, and provided to the financial proposal evaluation subcommittee (FPES) and technical proposal evaluation subcommittee (TPES), or subcommittees, for evaluation. Each of these subcommittees is made up of staff and other agency personnel with the appropriate experience; 3) The subcommittees each perform a responsiveness review of their respective proposals to ensure the proposers have met the requirements of the RFP, including organization, format, and inclusive of all the forms, as provided in the instructions to proposers (ITP); 4) Following the responsiveness review, each proposal is then evaluated against the pass/fail criteria identified in the ITP, which includes such criteria as company guarantees, proposal security, Disadvantaged Business Enterprise certification and adherence to the time for schedule completion. Proposals that meet the criteria move to the next step in the evaluation process. Proposers whose proposals did not meet the criteria may be allowed to either correct their deficiencies through clarifications and additional information at the Commission’s option, or be excused from further consideration; 5) The technical and financial proposals are then individually reviewed by advisory groups consisting of Commission staff and its consultants. The advisory groups provide the TPES and FPES a summary of their review findings; 6) Each of the subcommittees then performs its individual review and evaluation of the proposals and formulates its individual recommendations; 12 Agenda Item 8 7) Individual subcommittee member recommendations are scored and combined based on the predetermined weighting of the bid price, proposed completion schedule, and technical concepts and approach to the project; and 8) The proposer with the highest ABV score is selected for final negotiations. If negotiations are successful a recommendation for award of a design-build contract is made to the Commission. Attachment 3 provides an overview of the proposal evaluation and selection organizational structure. Attachment 4 provides a flowchart of the selection process. Apparent Best Value Determination The best-value determination will be based on a 100 point scale. The price score will represent up to 80 points of the total score, and the technical score will represent up to 20 points of the total score. The determination of ABV shall be based on the highest total proposal score (TPS) computed based on the following formula: TPS (max.100 pts.) = Price Score (max. 80 pts.) + Technical Score (max. 20 pts) The price score will be calculated based on the following formula: Price Score = (APPVLow/APPV) * 80, where; APPVLow = Lowest Adjusted Proposal Present Value (APPV) submitted by any proposer as determined by its fixed price, discounted monthly using a discount rate of 4 percent, and making a schedule adjustment of $95,000 per day times the number of calendar days difference between the number of calendars days shown in its proposal and the number of calendars days shown in the proposal with the shortest duration. APPV = Each proposer’s APPV as determined by their fixed price, discounted monthly using a discount rate of 4 percent, and making a schedule adjustment of $95,000 per day times the number of calendar days difference between its proposal duration and the proposal with the shortest duration. The technical score will be calculated based on the following formula: Technical Score = (TPES evaluation score/Highest TPES evaluation score for all proposers) * 20 13 Agenda Item 8 The technical score calculation will be based on the TPES evaluation score for the technical proposal that is based on factors regarding a proposer’s technical approach, project delivery approach, and quality management plan. Best and Final Offer The ability to issue a request for a BAFO is a common concept in design-build highway procurements and is specifically allowed under federal design-build procurement regulations (23 CFR Part 636). Although rarely used, having the ability to request a BAFO provides an option for the Commission to avoid delays that may occur during the procurement process. Typical examples that may trigger the issuance of a BAFO would include receipt of cost proposals that are all higher than the project budget and a determination that the RFP terms must be revised in order to clarify an ambiguity or to address changes in underlying circumstances. If used, a BAFO may be solicited at any time after receipt of proposals and prior to final award and shall follow the federal procedures for revised proposals. Stipend A stipend is an amount paid to unsuccessful but responsive proposers on design- build procurements. Stipends are commonly used by agencies nationally to reduce costs to industry for participation in design-build procurements and provide Proposers partial compensation for development of technical concepts and innovations. Stipends generally cover 20% to 40% of the proposer’s cost to prepare a responsive proposal/bid and allow an agency to have the right to incorporate a proposer’s technical concepts and innovations into the project or elsewhere. Stipends have been found to also increase competition by allowing firms to participate due to lower proposal costs and enhance price competition by keeping proposers in the game. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), under 23 CFR 636.112 and 636.113 provide for federal-aid participation in stipends with certain stipulations. There is no fixed formula for stipends. Industry surveys reveal that stipends are typically found to be in the range of 0.01% to 0.25% of the design-build contract value. The proposed stipend for the SR-91 CIP of $650,000 per team is approximately .08% of the estimated design-build contract value. Staff recommends paying a stipend to the unsuccessful but responsive proposers for the following reasons: • The SR-91 CIP is being procured using a design-build method of procurement; • FHWA recognizes and participates in the cost of stipends; 14 Agenda Item 8 • Payment of stipends is a common, national practice by agencies conducting design-build procurements; • Encourages competition among the engineering and construction firms; • Signals the Commission’s commitment to successfully complete the procurement; • Provides further incentive to the proposers to innovate and perform additional engineering work up-front and as part of their proposals; • Allows the Commission to use for the SR-91 CIP any innovations or technical concepts contained in the unsuccessful proposals; and • Reduces the chance of procurement protests by unsuccessful proposers because proposers who protest are not awarded stipends. Payment of the stipend to the unsuccessful proposers will be made if their proposal is determined by the Commission to be responsive, achieves a passing score under the criteria identified in the RFP, and all other conditions of the stipend agreement included in the RFP are met. Proposers will not receive a stipend if the Commission withdraws the RFP prior to the due date. Payment of the stipend will be made only after the design-build contract has been awarded to the successful proposer. Brand and Trade Name Usage The Commission and Caltrans currently use certain software, equipment, and services to develop and operate their existing projects. It is important for the SR-91 CIP that the software, equipment, and services used by the design-builder be compatible and interoperable with those currently used by the Commission and Caltrans. Use of incompatible products and services can lead to increased costs, operational difficulties, user confusion, and inefficiencies. Interchangeability and compatibility with software, equipment, and services in use on related facilities will minimize disruption to the SR-91 CIP, agencies, and ultimately the travelling public. Matching of the existing software, equipment, and services listed below is critical to the efficient design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the project. Computer Software • Microsoft Windows 7 (operating system) • Microsoft Office with Word, Excel, Outlook, and Media Player • IBM Lotus Notes • Novell GroupWise Design Software Applications • Civild and WSPGW programs from Civil Design Corp • FHWA Urban Drainage Design program • HY-22 (drainage of highway pavements) • ONDRRAIN v 7.5c (hydraulic calculator for onsite drainage) • HEC-RAS 4.1 (hydraulic software) 15 Agenda Item 8 • Bentley MicroStation CAD software • Autodesk Civil 3D roadway design software • Auto Turn by Transoft Solutions • Primavera scheduling software • FHWA RealCost software (version 2.2) • Geotechnical software gINT (version 8 or higher) Seismic Equipment/Instrumentation Sensors • Vibrating wire stain gage: VCE-4200 by Geokon, Inc. or Model EM-5 by Roctest, Inc. • Force balanced accelerometers: manufactured by Kinematic • Tilt meters: Model 800-H tilt meters with high-gain option by Applied Geomechanics, Inc. • Humidity meters: Model HMP 45A by Vaisala, Inc. or Model HMP 45C by Campbell Scientific, Inc. Freeway Service Patrol • Pepe’s Towing • Tri-City Towing Schedule The following represent the planned procurement milestones: Milestone Activity Date Industry review meetings (with pre-qualified teams) June 4-8, 2012 Issue final RFP (to pre-qualified teams) July 2012 One-on-one meetings August-October 2012 Final RFP addendum December 2012 Proposal due date January 2013 Proposal evaluation January-February 2013 Selection, negotiation, and staff recommendation February-March 2013 Committee and Commission approval of contract award March-April 2013 Financial Close May-July 2013 Notice to Proceed for final design and construction May-July 2013 RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff requests Commission approval to release the final RFP and future addenda, for the SR-91 CIP, subject to approval by Caltrans and FHWA. Authorization is also requested to approve the RFP selection criteria and process to select an ABV proposer, select the top three ranked best-value proposers, issue a BAFO (if required), conduct limited negotiations, return to the Commission with a design- 16 Agenda Item 8 build contract award recommendation, pay a stipend to the unsuccessful responsive proposers, and incorporate specific brand or trade names into the RFP. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2012/13 Amount: $2,600,000 Source of Funds: Measure A Budget Adjustment: No GL/Project Accounting No.: 003028 65520 262 31 65520 (Professional Services – Other) Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 05/10/12 Attachments: 1) Pre-Qualified Proposer Listing: SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project 2) Procurement Timeline – Commission Action Periods 3) Proposal Evaluation and Selection Organizational Structure 4) Selection Process 17 PRE-QUALIFIED PROPOSER LISTING: SR-91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1. Atkinson/Walsh, a Joint Venture Major Participants/ Principal Participants Atkinson Contractors, LP Walsh Construction Company The Walsh Group Clark Construction Group, LLC Guy F. Atkinson Construction, LLC Other Team Members URS – URS is not a Principal Participant or Equity Provider (Designer) WKE, Inc. Tatsumi and Partners, Inc. Westbound Communications Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. 2. The Kiewit Team Major Participants/ Principal Participants Kiewit Infrastructure West Co. Other Team Members HNTB Corporation – Not a Principal Participant (Designer) Brutoco Engineering and Construction, Inc Riverside Construction Company, Inc (RCC) Kleinfelder West, Inc. Iteris, Inc. Simon Wong Engineering Green Com, Inc. 3. Flatiron/Skanska/Rados, a Joint Venture Major Participants/ Principal Participants Flatiron West, Inc. Skanska USA Civil West California District Steve P. Rados, Inc. Other Team Members AECOM (Lead Designer) CH2M Hill Consensus Inc. Kimley Horn & Associates Diaz Yourman and Associates Leighton Consulting, Inc. Lin Consulting Wilson & Co. David Evans & Associates Civil Works 4. Shimmick Construction Company, Inc./ Obayashi Corporation/ FNF Construction, Inc. Major Participants/ Principal Participants Shimmick Construction Company, Inc. Obayashi Corporation FNF Construction, Inc. Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc. MTS Engineers, Inc. BKF Engineers Faubel Public Affairs TransCore Ultrasystems Environmental Hatch Mott MacDonald 18 19 111.111 VIM MI (saaRaldu.t3 A ua2v) paeag lat uaaN amj . Q MIN MI •1111 Q aannpnags/uo!lez!ueaap uownien3 d�� 21 State Route 91 Design-Build Procurement For Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee May21, 2012 [ Fixed lump sum pricing [ Securing financing [ Single point of responsibility [ Risk transfer [ Innovation 5/17/2012 1 • Bill passed February 2009 • Statewide pilot program for design-build • CTC approval March 2010 AB 2098 (Miller) • Bill passed September 2009 • SR-91 CIP: Project-Specific Authority • Governed by California and Federal regulations + Pre-Qualified Teams Sh•mm•d Constructton Compolny In' Obayash•Corporat•on FNFConstructon tnc •llasCarctoMAssodetes.lnc. •MTS Enalnnrt,lnc. •BKF Ere!""" Al~•n•onCorJtractor> LLP WalshConstruct•on(omp;my The Walsh Group (lar~ Constructlo1'1Group LLC •UAS K•ewot lnfrastructun•West Co Brutoco Enc~neenngand Const Inc RIYersideConstn,ILIIonCompany Inc Flat•ronWest Inc SkanskaUSAC•v•IWest Steve P Rados, Inc •A£ COM •CH2MHIU 5/17/2012 2 •Contract •Bfddlnc instructions •Technical requirements •Pre-qualified teams review and comment •1-on·l meetincs •Dfalocue and receive Input Industry review will take approximately three months to complete Team scored the apparent best value (ABV) 5/17/2012 3 ~--~-- RCTC CommiSSIOn RCTC Coun sel Separation of financial (bids) from technical proposals -Separate sealed financial proposal when submitted -Separate technical proposal Independent evaluations of each proposal 5/17/2012 4 Price Score= (Lowest Adjusted Price of Any Proposer I Proposer's Adjusted Price) X 80 Technical Score= (Proposer's Tech. Eva I. I Highest Tech . Eval. of Any Proposer) X 20 Note: See the agenda report for a more comprehensive description including schedule adjustment The selection formula adjusts the proposer's price by their proposed schedule . This benefits a proposer that proposes a shorter schedule. A B c 1460 (4y1$) 1S50 1700 $795,000,000 $750,000,000 $740,000,000 0 $95,000 0 $795,000,000 90 $9S,OOO $8,S50,000 $7S8,S50,000 240 $95,000 $22,800,000 $762,800,000 Note: $95,000/day is the calculated value of the liquidated damage for late delivery of the project per the design-build contract. This amount is also used as the value of a schedule day in the select ion formula . 5/17/2012 5 Proposer B Proposer C Technical Score 85 75 65 Proposer 's Pr ic e $795,000,000 $750,000,000 $740,000,000 Proposed Days 1460 1550 1700 Total Proposal Score 96.33 97.65 94.85 Example Calculations for Proposer C Adjustmenllo Propose(s Price= (1700 days -1460 days) X $95,000/day= $22 ,800 ,000 Propose(sAdjusted Price= $740,000,000+ $22 ,800,000= $762,800,000 Price Score= ($758,550,000 / $762 ,800,000) X 80 points max. = 79 .55 points Technical Score= (65/85) X 20 points max. = 15.29 points Total Proposal Score= 79.55 + 15.29 = 94 85 Points Note: Proposer B has the lowest Propose(s Adjusted Price at $758,550,000 5/17/2012 6 5/17/2012 Typical Design-Build Range* 0 .01% 0 .25% -II!!IBM:I§III!II-.., Gerald $7SOM $1M ~ CA 0.13 Q) Desmond (.!) Grand TX $8SOM $1M 0.12 Parkway (Toll Road) BART CA $8SOM $BOOk 0.09 SR-91 CIP CA $79SM $650k 0.08 Source: Design-Build Institute of America (DB/A) 7 COMMISSION ACTION P~ RIOO -MWE£KS • lssoolin.IRfPplusallluiURaddl!nda • APP'OYtlhe.elt<l•oncnttna.w1dprocessfor~lecbon fOI' llw APJ)Irtnl ~~ Val~~e (A8V) pHJpo~ • Appto'lt' tilt> lM' ol "')Ktlic bw~J <1nd lr~cko 1\oi~ ln thefin.liRFP • Negotiate with the f<SV propos.r · Negotlitt Wllh 1nd·rank(!(t j}IOf)OS~ II APN flt'90I1.1 Iions fa~ • ~lhortH BNO If In lnttrtst of comml!.sloo . Retvrnw•lh a~COfl'Wflt'1ld<ltlon loaw;udacontract lor O.Sion·8UIId servic.t!5 • APPJO~ ulptnd to be paid to un~ucctuful proposers ' Industry revtew meetmgs w/DB teams June 4-8, 2012 Issue ftnal RFP July, 2012 One -on -one meetmgs wtth DB teams August -October, 2012 Proposal evaluatton January-Feb. , 2013 COMMISSION ACTION PERIOD -6WUK$ Selection, negottatton, staff recommendation February -March, 2013 5/17/2012 8 Michael Blomquist, PE Toll Program Director 5/17/2012 9 AGENDA ITEM 9 Agenda Item 9 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 21, 2012 TO: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee FROM: Michael Blomquist, Toll Program Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: RCTC 91 Express Lanes Toll Policy STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Adopt Resolution 12-019, “Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Regarding the RCTC 91 Express Lanes Toll Policy”; 2) Adopt the Riverside County 91 Express Lanes Extension Investment Grade Study (Traffic and Revenue Study); and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 10-Year Delivery Plan and Tolling Due to the passage of the 2009 Measure A program, in December 2006 the Commission adopted the 2009 Measure A Western County Highway 10-Year Delivery Plan (10-Year Delivery Plan). The 10-Year Delivery Plan calls for the development of tolled express lane corridors within State Route 91 and Interstate 15. Development of the SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project The State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project will widen the SR-91 through the city of Corona, extend the existing 91 Express Lanes from the Orange County line to I-15, improve five local interchanges, reconstruct a portion of the 15/91 interchange, and other regular and express lane improvements within the SR-91 corridor. Due to the high priority of delivering these improvements, the SR-91 CIP is being fast-tracked by advancing several work phases concurrently. These concurrent work phases include preliminary engineering, environmental permitting, financing, right of way acquisition, utility and railroad planning, interagency agreements, and design-build (contractor procurement and planning for final design and construction). 22 Agenda Item 9 Tolling Authority In September 2008, SB 1316 (Correa) was signed into California law. SB 1316 was jointly sponsored by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and the Commission and paved the way for each agency to advance its long-term plan for tolled express lanes within the SR-91 corridor. For OCTA, SB 1316 extended its existing franchise agreement to operate the existing 91 Express Lanes through 2065. For the Commission, SB 1316 provided the Commission with the state tolling authority needed by authorizing for 50 years the charging of tolls for use of tolled express lanes within the SR-91 corridor between the Orange/Riverside County line and I-15. SB 1316 also gave the Commission the ability to sell toll revenue bonds, use of net toll revenue for other transportation purposes within the SR-91 corridor, and franchise agreement rights and responsibilities. In August 2009, the Commission obtained the federal tolling authority needed for the SR-91 tolled express lanes through the execution of a three-party agreement between the Commission, Caltrans, and the Federal Highway Administration. Orange Riverside Cooperative Agreement Executed in December 2011, the Orange Riverside Cooperative Agreement (ORCA) details how the Commission will develop and the Commission and OCTA will jointly operate and maintain an extended 91 Express Lanes system. Providing the users of the 91 Express Lanes a seamless experience when the express lanes get extended into Riverside County was an overarching theme in the ORCA. The ORCA details how many elements of the 91 Express Lanes will be shared between the agencies including the current operator of the lanes, marketing and customer service, customer account revenues, operations and maintenance costs, the existing traffic operations center, and the existing customer service center. The ORCA also details certain key elements of the 91 Express Lanes for which each agency would retain the ability to determine independent of the other. The method to finance the project, current and future, will be determined separately by each agency. Similarly, each agency has the right to collect and retain tolls in their respective county. Lastly, each agency has the right to set its own toll policy. OCTA 91 Express Lanes Toll Policy OCTA adopted its existing toll policy approximately nine years ago in 2003 around the time when OCTA purchased the 91 Express Lanes from the original developer and operator. The existing policy has proven effective in meeting OCTA’s stated goals of the 91 Express Lanes, which has long-served as the first, national example of variable pricing of toll express lanes. 23 Agenda Item 9 RCTC 91 Express Lanes Toll Policy Policy Goals The proposed goals for the RCTC 91 Express Lanes Toll Policy are as follows: • Provide a safe, and reliable, predictable commute for 91 Express Lanes customers; • Optimize vehicle throughput at free flow speeds; • Pay debt service and maintain debt service coverage; • Increase average vehicle occupancy; • Balance capacity and demand to serve customers who pay tolls as well as carpoolers with three or more persons who are offered discounted tolls; • Generate sufficient revenue to sustain the financial viability of the Commission’s 91 Express Lanes; • Ensure all covenants in the financing documents are met; and • Provide net revenues for Riverside Freeway/SR-91 corridor improvements. In the future there could be years of operation when, after all the costs of operating, maintaining, and financing the lanes are paid, there remains net revenue. Per Senate Bill 1316, net revenue, if any, shall be used to improve the corridor by funding other improvements including lane additions, interchange improvements, transit improvements, etc. resulting in a more efficient transportation corridor. Allocation of future net revenue, if any, would be through an action of the Commission. The Commission’s 91 Express Lanes policy goals are virtually identical to OCTA’s stated goals. OCTA and the Commission sharing the same toll policy goals supports coordinated regional operation of the lanes and a seamless customer experience. Toll Rates and Discounts The Commission’s 91 Express Lanes will use variable pricing – pricing that changes based on the demand for the express lanes – operating under the principle of supply and demand. Tolls to use the express lanes would vary based on actual congestion levels in the corridor with higher tolls during periods of higher corridor demand and lower tolls during periods of lower corridor demand. The existing 91 Express Lanes operates under this same approach and has seen toll rates rise and fall over longer periods due to the general level of the economy, drivers’ perceived value of their time, their willingness to pay for using the lanes, and other factors. The RCTC 91 Express Lanes Toll Policy defines super peak periods – or periods experiencing the highest level of traffic and congestion – and the specific 24 Agenda Item 9 mechanism by which tolls will adjust during these periods. In general, traffic volumes are monitored for a 12-week period, and consistent occurrences of high or low peak hour traffic volumes are identified. Based on the actual traffic volumes observed, toll rates are raised or lowered incrementally. The goals for adjusting tolls in the super peak period are to: a) reduce the likelihood of congestion by diverting traffic to other hours with available capacity; b) maintain free flow travel speed in the Commission’s 91 Express Lanes; c) maintain travel time savings; d) accommodate projected growth in travel demand and; e) ensure that the Commission’s 91 Express Lanes generate sufficient revenue to effectively operate the toll lanes and maintain a strong debt service position. Tolls for other periods outside of the super peak periods would also be based on actual congestion levels. A common measure of congestion, level of service, and the drivers’ perceived value of their time would be used to establish tolls in non-super peak periods. The tolls in the non-super peak periods would increase once certain traffic volume thresholds are exceeded. Additionally, tolls in non-super peak periods would increase annually by an inflation factor detailed in the RCTC 91 Express Lanes Toll Policy. Carpoolers with three or more persons, zero emission vehicles, motorcycles, disabled plates, and disabled veterans are permitted to ride free in the Commission’s 91 Express Lanes during most hours. The exception is Monday through Friday 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. in the eastbound direction when these users pay 50 percent of the toll. These toll discounts are identical to those used by the OCTA. It is the intent of the Commission’s toll policy to match the discounts OCTA provides to maintain consistent business practices for 91 Express Lanes’ customers. Financing Requirements The proposed toll policy described herein and detailed further in the RCTC 91 Express Lanes Toll Policy document was used to estimate toll rates and toll revenue for the duration of the 50-year period of operation. The estimated, annual toll revenue over the life of the Commission’s 91 Express Lanes is a key output of the Traffic and Revenue Study. The annual toll revenue generated serves as a critical input to the Commission’s SR-91 CIP financial model. This annual toll revenue plus many other factors are used to determine the amount of Measure A, toll revenue bond, and federal loan funds required to finance the project and reach financial close. The toll policy proposed for adoption has a direct effect on toll rates, toll revenue, and the amounts of each of the three major fund sources required to finance the project. The proposed toll policy fully supports the Commission’s project financing 25 Agenda Item 9 requirements to both initially fund the project’s design and construction as well as the 50-year operation period. The proposed toll policy and the resulting toll rates are estimated to generate enough toll revenue to pay the necessary debt service payments and maintain the required debt service coverage ratios (DSCRs) in the financing documents. It is recognized that maintaining a strong debt service position is a requirement in order to satisfy the covenants in the financing documents and meet the Commission’s fiduciary obligations. Therefore, the requirement to maintain DSCRs and the related toll rates necessary to maintain DSCRs would supersede the stated toll policy for setting and modifying tolls. This scenario would only apply when the DSCRs, debt payments, and/or bond covenants cannot be met and other reasonable means to meet these fiduciary responsibilities have been exhausted. Staff would return to the Commission under these extreme circumstances with a comprehensive report including the status of the financings, toll revenues, possible courses of action, recommendations, etc. Commission action would be sought and received prior to any change in the stated toll policy under these extreme circumstances. Timing of Toll Policy Adoption Staff is proposing adoption of the RCTC 91 Express Lanes Toll Policy in order to support all future project financing activities as described previously. The Commission’s proposed project funding sources are Measure A sales tax dollars including sales tax revenue bonds, toll revenue bonds, and a federal Transportation Investment Finance Innovation Act (TIFIA) loan. Adopting a toll policy is needed in advance of the TIFIA loan application submission planned for July 2012. An approved TIFIA loan plus the successful future sale of Measure A and toll revenue bonds are each a prerequisite to reaching financial close and having the full project funding available. Therefore, adopting the toll policy now, prior to the TIFIA loan application submission, helps meet both the financing requirements and the financing schedule. Exhibit V of the RCTC 91 Express Lanes Toll Policy attachment reflects toll rates that would result from the proposed toll policy in the year of planned opening (2017) expressed in 2012 dollars. Staff proposes to return to the Commission prior to the actual opening of the Commission’s 91 Express Lanes to provide an update to the toll rates for reference. The update of toll rates would be based on then-current corridor traffic conditions and the toll policy adopted in 2012. Traffic and Revenue Study An integral part of determining the financial feasibility of a tolling project is the traffic and revenue study. The Commission, through its traffic and revenue 26 Agenda Item 9 consultant, has conducted several of these studies for the SR-91 CIP since the adoption of the 10-Year Delivery Plan to help guide the project development work and to support project decisions. As the project develops from its preliminary stages to more advanced definitions of scope, cost, and schedule, the Traffic and Revenue Study is updated to reflect both current project data as well as regional data that influence the traffic and revenue study results. Typically the last traffic and revenue study update is performed during the final stages of the project’s development and prepared to support a project financing. The Traffic and Revenue Study is attached to this agenda report. Staff is seeking Commission adoption of this study to support upcoming project financing activities including submission of a TIFIA application, sale of Measure A and toll revenue bonds, and financial close. The Traffic and Revenue Study used the latest information related to traffic volumes, vehicle speed data, traveler origin-destination information, socio-economic trends, and land use planning to forecast future regional traffic growth. Additionally, a detailed micro-simulation traffic model was used to analyze traffic operations in the corridor and to assist with toll revenue forecasting. The study also analyzed different toll policies and the impact of those toll policies to corridor traffic and toll revenue. The toll rates and toll revenue estimates generated from the Traffic and Revenue Study support the project’s financial model. The project’s financial model can compare the impact of different toll policies to the available funding and therefore the financial feasibility of the project. Through this effort the Traffic and Revenue Study is a key tool to establish a toll policy. There is no fiscal impact related to the toll policy and the Traffic and Revenue Study. Attachments: 1) RCTC 91 Express Lanes Toll Policy, dated May 9, 2012 2) Resolution 12-019 3) Riverside County 91 Express Lanes Extension Investment Grade Study, dated May 9, 2012 27 ATTACHMENT 1 5/09/2012 RCTC 91 Express Lanes Toll Policy Adopted June 7, 2012 Goals The goals for the RCTC 91 Express Lanes toll policy are to: • Provide a safe, reliable, and predictable commute for 91 Express Lanes customers; • Optimize vehicle throughput at free flow speeds; • Pay debt service and maintain debt service coverage; • Increase average vehicle occupancy; • Balance capacity and demand to serve customers who pay tolls as well as carpoolers with three or more persons who are offered discounted tolls; • Generate sufficient revenue to sustain the financial viability of the RCTC 91 Express Lanes; • Ensure all covenants in the Financing Documents are met; and • Provide net revenues for Riverside Freeway/State Route 91 corridor improvements.1 Definitions Exhibit I, “Definitions”, clarifies terms used in this RCTC 91 Express Lanes Toll Policy. Super Peak Hours The toll adjustment goals for Super Peak hours are to: a) reduce the likelihood of congestion by diverting traffic to other hours with available capacity; b) maintain free flow travel speed in the RCTC 91 Express Lanes; c) maintain travel time savings; d) accommodate projected growth in travel demand and; e) ensure that the toll road generates sufficient revenue to effectively operate the toll lanes and maintain a strong debt service position. 1 As allowable under Senate Bill 1316. 28 05/09/2012 -2- The toll for use of the RCTC 91 Express Lanes during a Super Peak hour shall be determined as follows: 1. Hourly, day, and direction traffic volumes will be continually monitored on a rolling 12 consecutive week period basis. The review period of 12 weeks may be reduced to a shorter period during times of abnormal travel patterns in the State Route 91 corridor. Such abnormal travel patterns shall include, but are not limited to, initial opening of the RCTC 91 Express Lanes and times of construction along State Route 91 or adjacent freeways or feeder routes. 2. Hourly, day, and directional traffic volumes of 3,128 or more will be flagged for further review. 3. If the hourly, day, and directional traffic volume is consistently at a level of Super Peak then the toll rate for that hour, day and direction may be increased. 4. The toll for that hour, day, and direction shall be increased, based on the average vehicle volume of the flagged hour, day, and direction identified per Section 2 above, as follows: (a) if the average flagged vehicle volume is 3,300 or more then the toll shall be increased by $1.00. (b) if the average flagged vehicle volume is between 3,200 and 3,299 then the toll shall be increased by $0.75. (c) if the average flagged vehicle volume is less than 3,200 then the toll shall not be changed. Six months after a toll increase, the most recent 12 consecutive weeks (excluding weeks with a Holiday or a major traffic anomaly caused by an accident or incident) shall be reviewed for the hour, day and direction that the toll was increased. If the traffic volume is less than 2,800 vehicles per hour, day, and direction in six or more of the weeks then the traffic volumes for that hour, day and direction for the 12 consecutive weeks shall be averaged. If the average traffic volume is less than 2,800 then the toll shall be reduced by $0.50 to stimulate demand and encourage RCTC 91 Express Lanes use. RCTC’s Board of Commissioners and customers will be informed of a toll adjustment 10 or more days prior to that toll adjustment becoming effective. Non-Super Peak Hours Non-Super Peak hours will generally remain at fixed levels within a broad band of Levels of Service, increasing annually by the Inflation Factor. 29 05/09/2012 -3- Vehicle volumes increasing from one Level of Service (LOS) to the next, would subject the toll rates to increase; the LOS for the Express Lanes are roughly defined as follows: LOS A 0 to 800 vehicles LOS B 800 to 1600 vehicles LOS C 1600 to 2400 vehicles LOS D 2400 to 2800 vehicles LOS E 2800 to 3100 vehicles Toll rates will be adopted for each LOS reflecting the time savings value to the driver as traffic moves into the next level of congestion. All tolls shall be rounded up or down to the nearest 5-cent increment. Discount Vehicles with three or more persons (HOV3+), zero emission vehicles (ZEVs), motorcycles, disabled plates and disabled veterans are permitted to ride free in the RCTC 91 Express Lanes during most hours. The exception is Monday through Friday 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. in the eastbound direction when these users pay 50 percent of the toll. The exception that these users pay 50 percent remains in effect until such time as the Orange County Transportation Authority’s (OCTA) adopted toll policy for the 91 Express Lanes results in HOV3+ users using the OCTA 91 Express Lanes riding free all day, every day. It is the intent of RCTC to adjust its toll policy to match the HOV3+ discounts OCTA provides, subject to covenants in the Financing Documents and other financing requirements. Financing Requirements RCTC shall charge and collect tolls that generate enough revenue to maintain the Debt Service Coverage Ratios as required in the Financing Documents and to operate and maintain the RCTC 91 Express Lanes in a safe condition in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. RCTC recognizes that it must maintain a strong debt service position in order to satisfy the covenants in the Financing Documents. The requirement to maintain Debt Service Coverage Ratios and comply with Financing Document and other financing covenants will supersede the specific policies for setting and modifying tolls and discounts. Holiday Toll Schedules 30 05/09/2012 -4- Holiday toll schedules are identified on Exhibit V and shall be adjusted by the Inflation Factor at the beginning of each Fiscal Year following the opening of RCTC’s 91 Express Lanes. Interpretation These policies are intended as guidance and may be amended or superseded at any time. 31 05/09/2012 -5- Exhibit I Definitions Cash Available for Debt Service – for any Period, the excess, if any, computed on a cash basis, of: (1) the amount of RCTC 91 Express Lanes cash receipts during such Period from whatever source, including, without limitation, toll receipts, transponder revenues, and investment earnings, excluding: − proceeds of insurance, − proceeds of debt service letter of credit or other amounts held in or disbursed from the payment account, the debt service reserve account, the coverage account and the major maintenance reserve account, and − the proceeds of any bonds or loans issued or executed to provide capital improvements to the RCTC 91 Express Lanes, over (2) All Operating and Maintenance Costs incurred during such Period and not deducted in the computation of Cash Available for Debt Service in a prior Period. In computing Operating and Maintenance Costs for any Period, an appropriate prorating will be made for expenditures such as insurance premiums and taxes that would be prorated if the computation were to be made in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Consistently – Any six weeks of twelve consecutive weeks, excluding any week that includes a Holiday or major traffic pattern anomaly caused by an accident or incident. Debt Service – for any Period, all payments of principal, interest, premiums (if any), fees and other amounts made (including by way of prepayment) or required to be made by RCTC during such Period under the Financing Documents (debt service payments related to RCTC’s internal subordinated debt borrowings or application of revenues to pay RCTC’s sales tax revenue bonds are to be excluded from these calculations). In computing Debt Service for any Period prior to the issuance of any additional financing, subject to the specific terms of the Financing Documents, RCTC will give pro forma effect to the transactions contemplated by the Financing Documents and the use of proceeds of the additional financing. In computing Debt Service for any prospective Period, RCTC will estimate in good faith such payments on the basis of reasonable assumptions. Such assumptions will include the absence of any waivers of or amendments to any agreements and the absence of any optional or extraordinary mandatory redemption of existing financings. 32 05/09/2012 -6- Debt Service Coverage Ratio – defined specifically in the Financing Documents, which specific provisions control the implementation and setting of tolls and discounts, but generally, for any Period, the ratio of Cash Available for Debt Service for such Period to Debt Service for such Period. Financing Documents – the documents under which RCTC has issued toll revenue bonds or other financings, including financings with TIFIA, payable primarily from toll revenues. Fiscal Year – July 1 to June 30 Holiday – Any of the following holidays that occur or are recognized any day between Monday through Friday: New Year’s Day, Memorial Day, 4th of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving and Christmas. Inflation Factor - the product of the hourly toll for the immediately preceding fiscal year, times the CPI Index Adjuster for the prior fiscal year divided by the CPI Index Adjuster for the year immediately preceding such fiscal year, but in no case less than zero. Maximum Optimal Capacity – 3,400 vehicles per hour, per day, per direction in the RCTC 91 Express Lanes facility. Non-Super Peak – Hourly period that is not Super Peak. Operating and Maintenance Costs – defined specifically in the Financing Documents, but generally, all reasonable and necessary expenses of administering, managing, maintaining and operating the RCTC 91 Express Lanes and in accordance with the operation and maintenance agreements. Period – the most recent twelve complete months. Super Peak – Hourly period, per day, and per direction with traffic volume use which meets or exceeds the Trigger Point. Trigger Point – 92 percent or more of Maximum Optimal Capacity (3,128+ vehicles per hour, per day, and per direction). Week – 12:00 a.m. Sunday to 11:59 p.m. the following Saturday. Some of the financial definitions will be modified to reflect the bond covenants in the bond financing documents. 33 ATTACHMENT 1 05/09/2012 -7- Exhibit II Toll Policy Decision Process Congestion Management Pricing in Super Peak Description / Detail Monitor adjusted hourly, directional traffic for last 12 consecutive weeks (exclude days/hours with holidays, major incidents, accidents) Flag individual adjusted hours when traffic volume is 3,128 vehicles or less per hour, per day per direction. Determine if this occurs six or more times in the 12 week period Average the traffic volume for the hour, day and direction for the 12 week period (exclude holidays, accidents, major incidents). Monitor Traffic Identify High Hourly Volumes Average High Volume Hours Average 3,200 - 3,299 Average 3.300 or more Increase Hourly Toll Rate $1.00 Increase Hourly Toll Rate $0.75 Average less than 3,200 Do Not Increase Hourly Toll Hold Adjusted Rate Constant for 6 Months Follow Adjusted Toll Rate Follow On Process NO YES YESYESYES 34 05/09/2012 -8- Exhibit III Adjusted Toll Rate Follow On Process (Super Peak Adjusted Rates Only) Description / Detail Monitor adjusted hourly, directional traffic for last 12 consecutive weeks (exclude days/hours with holidays, major incidents, accidents) Flag individual adjusted hours when traffic volume is 2,720 vehicles or less per hour, per day per direction. Determine if this occurs six or more times in the 12 week period Average the traffic volume for the hour, day and direction for the 12 week period (exclude holidays, accidents, major incidents). Adjusted Rates Frozen for 6 Months Per Super Peak Monitor Traffic in Adjusted Super Peak Periods Identify Patterns of Low Volumes for Adjusted Rates Average Hourly Traffic Volume Average greater than 2,800 Average less than or equal to 2,800 Reduce Hourly Toll Rate $0.50 Keep Price Same or Determine if Super Peak Pricing Applies 35 05/09/2012 -9- Exhibit IV Toll Policy Decision Process Non Super Peak Periods (*) The actual rates shown are the projected rates from the 91 Express Lanes Extension Investment Grade Study. Once the facility is operational, traffic volumes will be monitored and rates adjusted accordingly. Rates shown represent projected scale of toll rates by volume category (in 2012 $). Description / Detail Monitor adjusted hourly, directional traffic for last 12 consecutive weeks (exclude days/hours with holidays, major incidents, accidents) Flag individual adjusted hours when traffic volume is 3,128 vehicles or less per hour, per day per direction. Determine if this occurs six or more times in the 12 week period Average the traffic volume for the hour, day and direction for the 12 week period (exclude holidays, accidents, major incidents). Monitor Traffic Identify Hourly Volumes Average Volume Hours Average 1,601 - 2,400 Average 801 -1,600 Set Toll Category B $2.80 / $2.10 Set Toll Category C $3.75 / $2.85 Average 2,401 - 2,800 Set Toll Category D $4.70 / $3.60 If Rate Changed, Hold Adjusted Rate Constant for 6 Months YESYESYES Average less than 800 Set Toll Category A $1.55 / $1.20 Average 2.800 - 3,128 Set Toll Category E $5.45 / $4.15 YESYES 36 05/09/2012 -10- Exhibit V RCTC 91 Express Lanes Toll Schedule June 13, 2012 The charts below identify the toll schedule in effect as of opening year of RCTC’s 91 Express Lanes once a steady state condition emerges after the initial opening ramp-up period. The assumed opening year is 2017 and the toll schedule rates are in current year 2012 dollars. The toll schedule below is provided only to illustrate the projected hourly toll rates that would result from implementing RCTC’s toll policy. Prior to the first day of operation of RCTC’s 91 Express Lanes, the toll schedule will be re-evaluated to reflect then-current corridor traffic information and presented to RCTC’s Board of Commissioners for reference. In addition to the posted tolls, the RCTC 91 Express Lane toll policy allow carpoolers with three or more persons (HOV3+), zero emission vehicles (ZEVs), motorcycles, disabled plates and disabled veterans to ride free during most hours. The exception is Monday through Friday 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. in the eastbound direction when they pay 50 percent of the posted toll. 37 05/09/2012 -11- Toll Schedule Eastbound Toll Schedule Westbound Effective June 1, 2017 Riverside Co. Line to I-15 at Ontario Effective June 1, 2017 I-15 at Ontario to Riverside Co. Line ** Year 2012 $'s ** Year 2012 $'s Sun M Tu W Th F Sat Time Sun Mon Tue Wed Thur Fri Sat Midnight $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 Midnight $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 1:00 AM $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 1:00 AM $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 2:00 AM $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 2:00 AM $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 3:00 AM $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 3:00 AM $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 4:00 AM $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 4:00 AM $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 5:00 AM $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 5:00 AM $1.55 $3.75 $3.75 $3.75 $3.75 $4.70 $1.55 6:00 AM $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 6:00 AM $1.55 $4.70 $4.70 $4.70 $4.70 $5.45 $1.55 7:00 AM $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 7:00 AM $1.55 $4.70 $4.70 $4.70 $4.70 $5.45 $1.55 8:00 AM $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 8:00 AM $1.55 $3.75 $3.75 $3.75 $3.75 $3.75 $1.55 9:00 AM $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 9:00 AM $1.55 $2.80 $2.80 $2.80 $2.80 $2.80 $1.55 10:00 AM $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 10:00 AM $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $2.80 11:00 AM $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 11:00 AM $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $2.80 NOON $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 NOON $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $2.80 1:00 PM $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $2.80 $2.80 1:00 PM $2.80 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $2.80 2:00 PM $1.55 $2.80 $2.80 $2.80 $2.80 $3.75 $2.80 2:00 PM $2.80 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $2.80 3:00 PM $1.55 $3.75 $3.75 $3.75 $3.75 $4.70 $2.80 3:00 PM $2.80 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $2.80 4:00 PM $1.55 $4.70 $4.70 $4.70 $4.70 $4.70 $2.80 4:00 PM $2.80 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $2.80 $2.80 5:00 PM $2.80 $4.70 $4.70 $4.70 $4.70 $4.70 $2.80 5:00 PM $2.80 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $2.80 $2.80 6:00 PM $2.80 $4.70 $4.70 $4.70 $4.70 $5.45 $2.80 6:00 PM $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $2.80 7:00 PM $1.55 $3.75 $3.75 $3.75 $3.75 $4.70 $1.55 7:00 PM $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 8:00 PM $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $3.75 $1.55 8:00 PM $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 9:00 PM $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $2.80 $1.55 9:00 PM $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 10:00 PM $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 10:00 PM $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 11:00 PM $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 11:00 PM $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 Toll Schedule Eastbound Toll Schedule Westbound Effective June 1, 2017 Riverside Co. Line to McKinley Street Effective June 1, 2017 McKinley Street to Riverside Co. Line ** Year 2012 $'s ** Year 2012 $'s Sun Mon Tue Wed Thur Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thur Fri Sat Midnight $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 Midnight $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 1:00 AM $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 1:00 AM $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 2:00 AM $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 2:00 AM $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 3:00 AM $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 3:00 AM $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 4:00 AM $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 4:00 AM $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 5:00 AM $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 5:00 AM $1.20 $2.85 $2.85 $2.85 $2.85 $3.60 $1.20 6:00 AM $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 6:00 AM $1.20 $3.60 $3.60 $3.60 $3.60 $4.15 $1.20 7:00 AM $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 7:00 AM $1.20 $3.60 $3.60 $3.60 $3.60 $4.15 $1.20 8:00 AM $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 8:00 AM $1.20 $2.85 $2.85 $2.85 $2.85 $2.85 $1.20 9:00 AM $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 9:00 AM $1.20 $2.10 $2.10 $2.10 $2.10 $2.10 $1.20 10:00 AM $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 10:00 AM $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $2.10 11:00 AM $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 11:00 AM $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $2.10 NOON $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 NOON $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $2.10 1:00 PM $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $2.10 $2.10 1:00 PM $2.10 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $2.10 2:00 PM $1.20 $2.10 $2.10 $2.10 $2.10 $2.85 $2.10 2:00 PM $2.10 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $2.10 3:00 PM $1.20 $2.85 $2.85 $2.85 $2.85 $3.60 $2.10 3:00 PM $2.10 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $2.10 4:00 PM $1.20 $3.60 $3.60 $3.60 $3.60 $3.60 $2.10 4:00 PM $2.10 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $2.10 $2.10 5:00 PM $2.10 $3.60 $3.60 $3.60 $3.60 $3.60 $2.10 5:00 PM $2.10 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $2.10 $2.10 6:00 PM $2.10 $3.60 $3.60 $3.60 $3.60 $4.15 $2.10 6:00 PM $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $2.10 7:00 PM $1.20 $2.85 $2.85 $2.85 $2.85 $3.60 $1.20 7:00 PM $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 8:00 PM $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $2.85 $1.20 8:00 PM $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 9:00 PM $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $2.10 $1.20 9:00 PM $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 10:00 PM $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 10:00 PM $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 11:00 PM $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 11:00 PM $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 Riverside 91 Express Riverside 91 Express Riverside 91 Express Riverside 91 Express 38 05/09/2012 -12- Exhibit VI RCTC 91 Express Lanes Holiday Schedule (*) The intent of the holiday schedule is to offer tolls that reflect holiday traffic patterns. If Christmas, New Years or Fourth of July falls on a Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday, the regular Friday toll schedule will be used the day before the holiday. If the day after Christmas, New Years or Fourth of July is a Friday or Monday, it is assumed these are traditionally light traffic days, therefore, a reduced rate applies (Friday after Thanksgiving rate will be used). If Christmas, New Years or Fourth of July fall on Saturday, it is assumed the Friday before is a traditionally light traffic day; therefore the stated Christmas, New Years or Fourth of July holiday toll schedule applies. It is also assumed that the Thursday before is a heavy traffic day, therefore, the regular Friday schedule applies. When reduced rates apply, the weekend HOV3+ policy will be in effect. Toll Schedule Eastbound Toll Schedule Westbound Effective June 1, 2017 Effective June 1, 2017 Riverside Co. Line to I-15 at Ontario I-15 at Ontario to Riverside Co. Line ** Year 2012 $'s ** Year 2012 $'s Weekday Weekend Time Weekday Weekend Midnight $1.55 $1.55 Midnight $1.55 $1.55 1:00 AM $1.55 $1.55 1:00 AM $1.55 $1.55 2:00 AM $1.55 $1.55 2:00 AM $1.55 $1.55 3:00 AM $1.55 $1.55 3:00 AM $1.55 $1.55 4:00 AM $1.55 $1.55 4:00 AM $1.55 $1.55 5:00 AM $1.55 $1.55 5:00 AM $2.80 $1.55 6:00 AM $1.55 $1.55 6:00 AM $3.75 $1.55 7:00 AM $1.55 $1.55 7:00 AM $3.75 $1.55 8:00 AM $1.55 $1.55 8:00 AM $2.80 $1.55 9:00 AM $1.55 $1.55 9:00 AM $1.55 $1.55 10:00 AM $1.55 $1.55 10:00 AM $1.55 $2.80 11:00 AM $1.55 $1.55 11:00 AM $1.55 $2.80 NOON $1.55 $1.55 NOON $1.55 $2.80 1:00 PM $1.55 $2.80 1:00 PM $1.55 $2.80 2:00 PM $1.55 $2.80 2:00 PM $1.55 $2.80 3:00 PM $2.80 $2.80 3:00 PM $1.55 $2.80 4:00 PM $3.75 $2.80 4:00 PM $1.55 $2.80 5:00 PM $3.75 $2.80 5:00 PM $1.55 $2.80 6:00 PM $3.75 $2.80 6:00 PM $1.55 $2.80 7:00 PM $2.80 $1.55 7:00 PM $1.55 $1.55 8:00 PM $1.55 $1.55 8:00 PM $1.55 $1.55 9:00 PM $1.55 $1.55 9:00 PM $1.55 $1.55 10:00 PM $1.55 $1.55 10:00 PM $1.55 $1.55 11:00 PM $1.55 $1.55 11:00 PM $1.55 $1.55 Riverside Co. Line to McKinley Street McKinley Street to Riverside Co. Line ** Year 2012 $'s ** Year 2012 $'s Weekday Weekend Weekday Weekend Midnight $1.20 $1.20 Midnight $1.20 $1.20 1:00 AM $1.20 $1.20 1:00 AM $1.20 $1.20 2:00 AM $1.20 $1.20 2:00 AM $1.20 $1.20 3:00 AM $1.20 $1.20 3:00 AM $1.20 $1.20 4:00 AM $1.20 $1.20 4:00 AM $1.20 $1.20 5:00 AM $1.20 $1.20 5:00 AM $2.10 $1.20 6:00 AM $1.20 $1.20 6:00 AM $2.85 $1.20 7:00 AM $1.20 $1.20 7:00 AM $2.85 $1.20 8:00 AM $1.20 $1.20 8:00 AM $2.10 $1.20 9:00 AM $1.20 $1.20 9:00 AM $1.20 $1.20 10:00 AM $1.20 $1.20 10:00 AM $1.20 $2.10 11:00 AM $1.20 $1.20 11:00 AM $1.20 $2.10 NOON $1.20 $1.20 NOON $1.20 $2.10 1:00 PM $1.20 $2.10 1:00 PM $1.20 $2.10 2:00 PM $1.20 $2.10 2:00 PM $1.20 $2.10 3:00 PM $2.10 $2.10 3:00 PM $1.20 $2.10 4:00 PM $2.85 $2.10 4:00 PM $1.20 $2.10 5:00 PM $2.85 $2.10 5:00 PM $1.20 $2.10 6:00 PM $2.85 $2.10 6:00 PM $1.20 $2.10 7:00 PM $2.10 $1.20 7:00 PM $1.20 $1.20 8:00 PM $1.20 $1.20 8:00 PM $1.20 $1.20 9:00 PM $1.20 $1.20 9:00 PM $1.20 $1.20 10:00 PM $1.20 $1.20 10:00 PM $1.20 $1.20 11:00 PM $1.20 $1.20 11:00 PM $1.20 $1.20 Riverside 91 Express Riverside 91 Express 39 ATTACHMENT 2 RESOLUTION NO. 12-019 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION REGARDING THE RCTC 91 EXPRESS LANES TOLL POLICY WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (the “Commission”) will soon embark on construction for the widening of State Route 91 through the City of Corona; WHEREAS, the Commission has received legislative and regulatory approval to build and operate a toll facility along State Route 91; WHEREAS, a significant portion of the project includes the addition of two tolled Express Lanes from the Orange County Line to Interstate 15; WHEREAS, the Commission’s toll facility will connect to the existing 91 Express Lanes which are operated by the Orange County Transportation Authority; WHEREAS, the Commission intends to work closely with the existing 91 Express Lanes regarding operations, enforcement and marketing matters; WHEREAS, the project requires significant financing to ensure the timely completion of this $1.3 billion, design-build project; WHEREAS, the success of the financing and future operation of the toll facilities requires an efficient and workable toll policy; and WHEREAS, the Commission currently retains the authority to add, delete, or otherwise modify its policies and procedures. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Riverside County Transportation Commission as follows; Section 1. The Riverside County Transportation Commission hereby adopts the RCTC 91 Express Lanes Toll Policy attached as Exhibit A. The details of the policy shall be approved by the Commission 40 during its actions on June 7 and shall be communicated to the financial community, toll facility users, and the general public. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of June, 2012. __________________________________________ John J. Benoit, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: _________________________________ Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board 41 Riverside County 91 Express Lanes Extension Investment Grade Traffic and Revenue Study May 9, 2012 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 91 E.1 Executive Summary Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (Stantec) was retained by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) to examine the financial feasibility of extending the existing 91 Express Lanes in Orange County to the east approximately eight miles into Riverside County to the I -15 interchange. As part of this study, which is of investment grade quality and is suitable for bond financing, the project team collected new traffic volume, speed data, and origin -destination information in the SR 91 corridor. These data were used to re -calibrate and validate the regional travel demand model (RivTAM) for the corridor. Updated socio -economic and land use projections were completed and incorporated into the model to forecast future traffic growth in the region. A detailed micro-simulation model was constructed to analyze the traffic operational impacts of the project and to assist in revenue forecasting. Finally, several toll policies were created and analyzed, with full traffic and revenue streams estimated for three different policies. Stantec had the overall lead for the Traffic and Revenue Investment Grade Study and was responsible for project management and coordination, calibrating and validating the regional travel demand model, constructing and calibrating a corridor micro-simulation model and forecasting the future gross toll revenues to be derived from the Riverside County 91 Express Lanes Extension. Two firms assisted Stantec in this work effort: PB Consult Inc. (“PB”) provided the socioeconomic and land use review of employment and household projec tions used in the traffic model and DKS Associates (“DKS”) oversaw the data collection process and helped to summarize and analyze existing traffic volumes and speeds in the SR-91 study area. PROJECT DESCRIPTION SR-91 is the only major surface transportation facility connecting Orange and Riverside Counties and is the primary daily commuting route between the counties. The rapidly growing population, driving in part by the relatively affordable housing market in Riverside County, computed with increasing employment opportunities in Orange County, has resulted in a large number of Riverside County residents commuting to employment in Orange County. Based on long-term regional population and employment projections, this commute pattern is expected to continue and grow into the future. In addition, SR-91 is heavily used for goods movement from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to destinations in inland Southern California as well as other destinations across the United States. SR-91 currently has four general purpose (GP) lanes in each direction, with those lanes varying in width from 11 to 12 feet from the SR-241/SR-91 interchange in Orange County to the RIVERSIDE COUNTY 91 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY May 9, 2012 E.2 SR-91/I-15 interchange in Riverside County. Currently, there are two tolled Express Lanes (XL) in each direction on the SR-91 in Orange County that are heavily used by commuters, residents, commercial businesses, and others traveling to and from Riverside and Orange counties. The existing Express Lanes, operated by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), begin west of the SR-91/SR-55 interchange and terminate at the Riverside/Orange County line. This Project extends the Express Lanes to the east approximately eight miles into Riverside County to the I-15 interchange. TOLL POLICY There are several methods to approach the setting of tolls for the RCTC SR 91 Express Lan es project. As part of this study, traffic and revenue streams were estimated for two different tolling policies: 1) implementing the existing OCTA toll policy and 2) implementing an “enhanced” toll policy that is based on the OCTA policy, but allows for the increase of off-peak toll rates once certain volume thresholds are exceeded. The enhanced policy is similar to the OCTA policy as it ties toll increases to traffic volumes, though it allows greater toll flexibility during non-peak periods. In addition, a sensitivity analysis was performed for a “revenue maximization” toll policy. TRAFFIC AND REVENUE ESTIMATES Utilizing the data and methodologies outlined throughout the following report, fifty year traffic and revenue streams were estimated for both the OCTA and enhanced toll policies. The detailed results are shown in ES-1 and ES-2 below. Both toll policies have similar patterns for traffic growth, with global corridor traffic growing by slightly more than 1 percent until 2035, when traffic growth slows to approximately 0.5 percent per year. Express Lane transactions grow by approximately 3 percent per year for the OCTA toll policy case versus approximately 2.6 percent in the enhanced case. This slight reduction in transaction growth can be attributed to the higher toll rates charged under the enhanced toll policy. The largest difference is in revenue growth, where the OCTA toll policy grows just under 4 percent per year, the enhanced toll policy leads to revenue growth of 6 percent per year. Again, this is attributable to higher toll rates during the shoulder and off -peak hours under the enhanced toll policy. The average toll rate in 2035 under the OCTA toll policy is $2.42 versus $3.59 for the enhanced toll policy. A decrease in transactions and revenue occurs in 2035 with the completion of the “Ultimate” project, which adds general purpose lane capacity to the corridor. RIVERSIDE COUNTY 91 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY May 9, 2012 E.3 Table ES-1 Traffic and Revenue Estimates, OCTA Toll Policy RIVERSIDE COUNTY 91 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY May 9, 2012 E.4 Table ES-2 Traffic and Revenue Estimates, Enhanced Toll Policy RIVERSIDE COUNTY 91 i Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY E.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................................... 1 TOLL POLICY ............................................................................................................................ 2 TRAFFIC AND REVENUE ESTIMATES .................................................................................... 2 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1.1 1.1 PURPOSE AND FOCUS OF THE STUDY ........................................................................ 1.1 1.2 THE CONSULTANT TEAM ............................................................................................... 1.2 1.3 OVERVIEW OF THE REPORT ......................................................................................... 1.2 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SETTING ....................................................................... 2.1 2.1 ROADWAY ALIGNMENT .................................................................................................. 2.1 2.2 EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS ................................................................ 2.1 2.2.1 State Route 91 ................................................................................................... 2.2 2.2.2 Intersecting Routes ............................................................................................ 2.2 2.2.3 Supporting and Competing Routes ..................................................................... 2.4 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS .................................................................................................. 3.1 3.1 TRAFFIC VOLUMES ........................................................................................................ 3.1 3.1.1 Wavetronix Traffic Counts .................................................................................. 3.2 3.1.1.1 Westbound Weekday Traffic Volumes ................................................................ 3.3 3.1.1.2 Eastbound Weekday Traffic Volumes ................................................................. 3.4 3.1.1.3 Friday and Weekend Traffic Volumes ................................................................. 3.7 3.1.2 Major Intersecting Roadways Volumes ............................................................... 3.9 3.1.3 PEMS Traffic Counts ........................................................................................ 3.12 3.1.4 OCTA Transaction Data ................................................................................... 3.14 3.1.5 HOV Data ......................................................................................................... 3.17 3.1.6 Balanced Flow Network .................................................................................... 3.20 3.1.7 Origin Destination Survey ................................................................................. 3.22 3.2 VEHICLE SPEEDS ......................................................................................................... 3.24 3.2.1 Wavetronix Speed Data .................................................................................... 3.24 3.2.2 BluFax Speeds ................................................................................................. 3.29 3.2.3 PeMS Speeds .................................................................................................. 3.33 4.0 SOCIOECONOMIC VARIABLES AND LAND USE .......................................................... 4.1 4.1 SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................. 4.1 4.1.1 Study Area Employment Summary ..................................................................... 4.2 4.1.2 Study Area Household Summary ....................................................................... 4.4 4.2 FORECAST METHODOLOGY.......................................................................................... 4.5 4.3 HISTORICAL DATA AND TRENDS IN THE STUDY AREA ............................................ 4.11 4.3.1 Historical Study Area Employment Trends ....................................................... 4.11 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 91 ii 4.3.2 Historical Study Area Household Trends .......................................................... 4.17 4.4 BASE YEAR 2010 ESTIMATES ...................................................................................... 4.21 4.5 EMPLOYMENT FORECASTS ........................................................................................ 4.23 4.5.1 Comparative Third Party Forecasts: Long-Term ............................................... 4.23 4.5.2 Comparative Forecasts: Short-Term................................................................. 4.25 4.5.3 Study Area Employment Forecast .................................................................... 4.27 4.6 HOUSEHOLD FORECAST ............................................................................................. 4.31 4.6.1 Study Area Comparative Forecasts .................................................................. 4.31 4.6.2 Study Area Housing Unit Forecasts .................................................................. 4.33 4.6.3 Study Area Median Household Income Forecasts ............................................ 4.35 4.7 KEY DEVELOPMENTS IN THE STUDY AREA .............................................................. 4.36 4.7.1 Inland Empire Projects ..................................................................................... 4.38 4.7.2 Orange County Projects ................................................................................... 4.40 5.0 TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL ............................................................................................ 5-1 5.1 MODEL EVALUATION ..................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 MODEL STRUCTURE AND PROCESS ............................................................................ 5.3 5.3 TOLL DIVERSION MODEL ............................................................................................... 5.4 5.4 MODEL INPUTS ............................................................................................................... 5.6 5.5 BASE MODEL YEAR INPUTS .......................................................................................... 5.6 5.6 FORECAST MODEL YEAR INPUTS, 2020....................................................................... 5.7 5.7 FORECAST MODEL YEAR INPUTS, 2035....................................................................... 5.7 5.8 MODEL TOLLS ................................................................................................................. 5.8 5.9 CALIBRATION & VALIDATION OF THE MODEL ............................................................. 5.9 5.10 DATA SOURCES .............................................................................................................. 5.9 5.11 CALIBRATION & VALIDATION PROCESS..................................................................... 5.10 6.0 MICRO-SIMULATION MODEL ......................................................................................... 6.1 6.1 OVERVIEW....................................................................................................................... 6.1 6.2 METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................. 6.1 6.3 EXISTING CONDITIONS MODEL .................................................................................... 6.2 6.3.1 Network Assumptions ......................................................................................... 6.2 6.3.2 Volume Assumptions .......................................................................................... 6.4 6.3.3 Car Following Model Parameters ..................................................................... 6.15 6.3.4 Managed Lanes Coefficients and Tolls ............................................................. 6.15 6.3.5 Modeled Traffic Results vs. Actual.................................................................... 6.19 6.4 FUTURE YEAR MODEL ASSUMPTIONS AND RESULTS ............................................. 6.23 6.4.1 Network Assumptions and Scenarios ............................................................... 6.23 6.4.2 Volume Assumptions ........................................................................................ 6.26 6.4.3 Car Following Model Simulation Parameters .................................................... 6.28 6.4.4 Managed Lanes Coefficients and Tolls ............................................................. 6.28 6.4.5 Future Model Results, 2035 by 2020 Scenario ................................................. 6.29 6.4.6 Future Model Results, 2035 by 2035 Network .................................................. 6.41 7.0 MARKETSHARE ANALYSIS ........................................................................................... 7.1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 91 iii 7.1 OVERVIEW....................................................................................................................... 7.1 7.2 METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................. 7.1 7.3 EXISTING EXPRESS TRAFFIC VS GLOBAL V/C ............................................................ 7.1 7.3.1 Eastbound Express Traffic vs. Global Traffic ...................................................... 7.6 7.3.2 Congested Period Demand Estimation and Global V/C ...................................... 7.9 7.3.3 Toll Curve Fitting .............................................................................................. 7.12 7.3.4 Toll Traffic and Revenue Forecast vs. Actual ................................................... 7.15 7.4 APPLICATION TO RIVERSIDE COUNTY EXPRESS LANES ........................................ 7.20 7.4.1 Lane Configuration Adjustment ........................................................................ 7.20 7.4.2 Toll Adjustment ................................................................................................ 7.21 8.0 TOLLED TRAFFIC AND REVENUE ESTIMATES ............................................................ 8.1 8.1 TOLL POLICY ................................................................................................................... 8.1 8.1.1 OCTA SR 91 TOLL POLICY .............................................................................. 8.1 8.1.2 ENHANCED SR 91 TOLL POLICY..................................................................... 8.5 8.2 TRAFFIC AND REVENUE ESTIMATES ........................................................................... 8.7 9.0 SENSITIVITY ANALYSES ................................................................................................ 9.1 9.1 REVENUE MAXIMIZATION .............................................................................................. 9.1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 91 i List of Figures Figure 2-1 Map of Riverside County Express Lanes and Surrounding Area ................................ 2.1 Figure 2-2 Map of Intersecting and Supporting Roadways ......................................................... 2.4 Figure 3-1 Location of Wavetronix Count Stations ...................................................................... 3.1 Figure 3-2 Daily Traffic Volume Recorded at Wavetronix Count Stations .................................. 3.3 Figure 3-3 Profile of Weekday Traffic Volumes on SR-91 (Westbound) ..................................... 3.6 Figure 3-4 Profile of Weekday Traffic Volumes on SR-91 (Eastbound) ....................................... 3.6 Figure 3-5 Traffic Volumes on SR-91 by Day of Week, Between SR-241 and SR-71 ................... 3.7 Figure 3-6 Traffic Volumes on SR-91 by Day of Week, East of SR-71 .......................................... 3.8 Figure 3-7 Traffic Volumes on SR-91 by Day of Week, West of I-15 ........................................... 3.8 Figure 3-8 Traffic Volumes on SR-91 by Day of Week, East of I-15 ............................................. 3.9 Figure 3-9 Weekday Traffic Volumes on I-15, South and North of SR-91 ................................. 3.10 Figure 3-10 Weekday Traffic Volumes on SR-71........................................................................ 3.11 Figure 3-11 Westbound Wavetronix and PeMS Data at Wavetronix Location 2 ...................... 3.12 Figure 3-12 Westbound Wavetronix and PeMS data at Wavetronix Location 3 ...................... 3.13 Figure 3-13 Eastbound Wavetronix and PeMS Data at Wavetronix Location 2 ........................ 3.13 Figure 3-14 Eastbound Wavetronix and PeMS Data at Wavetronix Location 3 ........................ 3.14 Figure 3-15 Westbound Weekday OCTA HOV and Toll Volumes and Wavetronix Total Volume .................................................................................................................................................... 3.16 Figure 3-16 Eastbound Weekday OCTA HOV and Toll Volumes and Wavetronix Total Volume .................................................................................................................................................... 3.16 Figure 3-17 Average Weekday Traffic East of SR-71 Broken into HOV and GP ......................... 3.18 Figure 3-18 Average Weekday Traffic West of I-15 Broken into HOV and GP .......................... 3.18 Figure 3-19 Average Weekday Traffic East of I-15 Broken into HOV and GP ............................ 3.18 Figure 3-20 HOV Traffic Volumes on SR-91 by Day of Week, East of SR-71 .............................. 3.19 Figure 3-21 HOV Traffic Volumes on SR-91 by Day of Week, West of I-15 ............................... 3.19 Figure 3-22 HOV Traffic Volumes on SR-91 by Day of Week, East of I-15 ................................. 3.19 Figure 3-23 Existing Balanced Network ..................................................................................... 3.21 Figure 3-24 Distribution of Traffic on SR-91 at SR-71 Interchange ........................................... 3.22 Figure 3-25 Distribution of Traffic on SR-91 at I-15 Interchange .............................................. 3.23 Figure 3-26 Distribution of Traffic Entering SR-91 ..................................................................... 3.23 Figure 3-27 Weekday General Purpose Lane Speed and Volume (Westbound) ....................... 3.25 Figure 3-28 Weekday General Purpose Lane Speed and Volume (Eastbound) ........................ 3.25 Figure 3-29 Friday General Purpose Lane Speed and Volume (Westbound) ............................ 3.26 Figure 3-30 Friday General Purpose Lane Speed and Volume (Eastbound) .............................. 3.26 Figure 3-31 Saturday General Purpose Lane Speed and Volume (Westbound) ........................ 3.27 Figure 3-32 Saturday General Purpose Lane Speed and Volume (Eastbound) ......................... 3.27 Figure 3-33 Sunday General Purpose Lane Speed and Volume (Westbound) .......................... 3.28 Figure 3-34 Sunday General Purpose Lane Speed and Volume (Westbound) .......................... 3.28 Figure 3-35 Average Westbound Weekday Speeds at 7AM ...................................................... 3.30 Figure 3-36 Average Eastbound Weekday Speeds at 5PM ........................................................ 3.31 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 91 ii Figure 3-37 Average Speeds Between West of SR-71 and East of I-15 ..................................... 3.33 Figure 4-1 Historical and Base Case Employment Frorecasts ...................................................... 4.2 Figure 4-2 Historical and Base Case Household Forecasts .......................................................... 4.4 Figure 4-3 Map of the Study Area ................................................................................................ 4.5 Figure 4-4 Map of SR-91 Corridor ................................................................................................ 4.6 Figure 4-5 Area of Focus for Socioeconomic Analysis ................................................................. 4.7 Figure 4-6 Illustration of the PB Land Use Forecast Model Methodology .................................. 4.9 Figure 4-7 Employment Growth by County, Change from 1990 Value ..................................... 4.13 Figure 4-8 Orange County Job Growth by Industry, 1990 – 2005 ............................................. 4.14 Figure 4-9 Riverside and San Bernardino County Job Growth by Industry, 1990 – 2005 ......... 4.15 Figure 4-10 Study Area Residential Building Permit Issuance, 2005 – 2010 ............................. 4.20 Figure 4-11 Compound Annual Growth Rate Comparison of Short Term Employment Forecasts .................................................................................................................................................... 4.26 Figure 4-12 Comparison of Long-Term Household Growth Rates ............................................. 4.32 Figure 4-13 Map of Inland Empire Developments ..................................................................... 4.38 Figure 4-14 Map of Orange County Developments ................................................................... 4.41 Figure 5-1 Model Structure with Toll Diversion Assignment Model. .......................................... 5.5 Figure 5-2 Count Locations ........................................................................................................ 5.10 Figure 5-3 %RMSE Assignment Accuracy Guidelines ................................................................. 5.12 Figure 5-4 Enhanced RivTAM Model %RMSE Assignment Accuracy ......................................... 5.13 Figure 6-1 Existing Conditions Micro simulation Model Study Area ........................................... 6.2 Figure 6-2 Existing Conditions SR 241 to CL, EB GP Demand vs. Count ...................................... 6.5 Figure 6-3 Existing Conditions SR 71 to Serfas Club, EB GP Demand vs. Count .......................... 6.5 Figure 6-4 Existing Conditions Main Street to I-15, EB GP Demand vs. Count ............................ 6.6 Figure 6-5 Existing Conditions I-15 to McKinley Street, EB GP Demand vs. Count ..................... 6.6 Figure 6-6 Existing Conditions SR 241 to CL, EB Express Demand vs. Count ............................... 6.7 Figure 6-7 Existing Conditions SR 71 to Serfas Club, EB HOV Demand vs. Count ....................... 6.7 Figure 6-8 Existing Conditions Main Street to I-15, EB HOV Demand vs. Count ......................... 6.8 Figure 6-9 Existing Conditions I-15 to McKinley Street, EB HOV Demand vs. Count .................. 6.8 Figure 6-10 Existing Conditions SR 241 to CL, WB GP Demand vs. Count ................................... 6.9 Figure 6-11 Existing Conditions SR 71 to Serfas Club, WB GP Demand vs. Count ..................... 6.10 Figure 6-12 Existing Conditions Main Street to I-15, WB GP Demand vs. Count ...................... 6.10 Figure 6-13 Existing Conditions McKinley Street to I-15, WB GP Demand vs. Count ................ 6.11 Figure 6-14 Existing Conditions SR 241 to Green River Road, WB Express Demand vs. Count 6.11 Figure 6-15 Existing Conditions SR 71 to Serfas Club, WB HOV Demand vs. Count .................. 6.12 Figure 6-16 Existing Conditions Main Street to I-15, WB HOV Demand vs. Count ................... 6.12 Figure 6-17 Existing Conditions McKinley Street to I-15, WB HOV Demand vs. Count ............. 6.13 Figure 6-18 SR 91 Eastbound Toll Curves by Vehicle Class ........................................................ 6.17 Figure 6-19 SR 91 Westbound Toll Curves by Vehicle Class ...................................................... 6.18 Figure 6-20 SR 91 Eastbound General Purpose Lanes, Model vs. Count, 2-7 PM ..................... 6.20 Figure 6-21 SR 91 Eastbound Express and HOV Lanes, Model vs. Count, 2-7 PM .................... 6.20 Figure 6-22 SR 91 Eastbound Travel Speeds, Model vs. Actual, 2-7 PM ................................... 6.21 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 91 iii Figure 6-23 SR 91 Westbound General Purpose Lanes, Model vs. Count, 2-7 PM ................... 6.22 Figure 6-24 SR 91 Westbound Express and HOV Lanes, Model vs. Count, 2-7 PM ................... 6.22 Figure 6-25 SR 91 Westbound Travel Speeds, Model vs. Actual, 2-7 PM .................................. 6.23 Figure 6-26 SR 91 Eastbound, RivTAM Model Global Traffic vs. Actual Balanced Demand, 3-7 PM .............................................................................................................................................. 6.27 Figure 6-27 2035 by 2020 Network Scenario, Eastbound from Green River Road to I-15 ........ 6.29 Figure 6-28 2035 by 2020 Network Scenario, Eastbound from Green River Road to Ontario Avenue ....................................................................................................................................... 6.30 Figure 6-29 Express Lanes Distribution, 2035 by 2020 Network ............................................... 6.33 Figure 6-30 2035 by 2020 Network Scenario, Westbound from I-15 to Green River Road ...... 6.34 Figure 6-31 2035 by 2020 Network Scenario, Westbound from Ontario Avenue to Green River Road ........................................................................................................................................... 6.35 Figure 6-32 Westbound Express Lanes Distribution, 2035 by 2020 Network ........................... 6.36 Figure 6-33 Express Lanes Toll Traffic, 2035 by 2020 Network ................................................. 6.37 Figure 6-34 Express Lanes Revenue, 2035 by 2020 Network .................................................... 6.37 Figure 6-35 Orange County Express Lanes Egress Area, 4:40 PM ............................................. 6.39 Figure 6-36 Serfas Club Drive, 4:40 PM ..................................................................................... 6.39 Figure 6-37 Lincoln Avenue, 4:40 PM ........................................................................................ 6.40 Figure 6-38 I-15 Interchange, 4:40 PM ...................................................................................... 6.40 Figure 6-39 McKinley Street Approach, 4:40 PM ...................................................................... 6.41 Figure 6-40 Eastbound Speeds, 2035 by 2035 Network Scenario, Green River Road to I-15 ... 6.42 Figure 6-41 Eastbound Speeds, 2035 by 2035 Network Scenario, Green River Road to Ontario Avenue ....................................................................................................................................... 6.42 Figure 6-42 Eastbound Express Lanes Distribution, 2035 by 2035 Network ............................. 6.45 Figure 6-43 Westbound Speeds, 2035 by 2035 Network, I-15 to Green River Road ................ 6.46 Figure 6-44 Westbound Speeds, 2035 by 2035 Network, Ontario Avenue to Green River Road .................................................................................................................................................... 6.46 Figure 6-45 Westbound Express Lanes Distribution, 2035 by 2035 Network ........................... 6.47 Figure 6-46 Express Lanes Toll Traffic, 2035 by 2035 Network ................................................. 6.48 Figure 6-47 Express Lanes Revenue, 2035 by 2035 Network .................................................... 6.48 Figure 6-48 Orange County SR 91 Mixing Area, 4:40 PM .......................................................... 6.50 Figure 6-49 Serfas Club Drive, 4:40 PM ..................................................................................... 6.50 Figure 6-50 Lincoln Avenue, 4:40 PM ........................................................................................ 6.51 Figure 6-51 I-15/SR 91 Interchange, 4:40 PM ............................................................................ 6.51 Figure 6-52 McKinley Street, 440 PM ........................................................................................ 6.52 Figure 7-1 SR 91 Express Lanes Weekday Traffic, Fiscal Year 2008 ............................................. 7.2 Figure 7-2 SR 91 Express Lanes Tolls, Average Monday to Thursday, July 2008 ......................... 7.3 Figure 7-3 SR 91 GP Lane Travel Time, SR 55 to County Line, July 2011 ..................................... 7.4 Figure 7-4 SR 91 GP & HOV Travel Time, County Line to McKinley Street, November 2010 ...... 7.5 Figure 7-5 Average Weekday General Purpose Volume per Lane .............................................. 7.6 Figure 7-6 Eastbound Express Traffic (Full Toll and HOV3+) vs. GP Lane Traffic ......................... 7.7 Figure 7-7 Eastbound Express Traffic (Full Toll and HOV3+) vs. GP Lane Speed ......................... 7.7 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 91 iv Figure 7-8 Eastbound Full Toll Traffic vs. GP Lane Traffic ............................................................ 7.8 Figure 7-9 Eastbound HOV3+ Traffic vs. GP Lane Traffic ............................................................. 7.9 Figure 7-10 General Purpose Lane Demand Adjustment .......................................................... 7.10 Figure 7-11 Akcelik Speed and V/C Curve .................................................................................. 7.10 Figure 7-12 SR 91 Eastbound General Purpose Lane Capacity, Weekday, Friday, & Weekend 7.11 Figure 7-13 SR 91 Eastbound GP, Express, and Global V/C ....................................................... 7.12 Figure 7-14 SR 91 Eastbound Express Full Toll Traffic Market share vs. Global V/C Data Plot, Weekdays ................................................................................................................................... 7.13 Figure 7-15 SR 91 Eastbound Express Weekday Toll Curves ..................................................... 7.14 Figure 7-16 SR 91 Eastbound Express Weekday, Friday, and Weekend Toll Curves ................. 7.15 Figure 7-17 SR 91 Express EB, Monday to Thursday Full Toll Hourly Volume, Modeled vs. Actual .................................................................................................................................................... 7.16 Figure 7-18 SR 91 Express EB, Monday to Thursday Full Toll Hourly Revenue, Modeled vs. Actual .................................................................................................................................................... 7.17 Figure 7-19 SR 91 Express EB, Friday Full Toll Hourly Volume, Modeled vs. Actual.................. 7.17 Figure 7-20 SR 91 Express EB, Friday Full Toll Hourly Revenue, Modeled vs. Actual ................ 7.18 Figure 7-21 SR 91 Express EB, Saturday Full Toll Hourly Volume, Modeled vs. Actual ............. 7.18 Figure 7-22 SR 91 Express EB, Saturday Full Toll Hourly Revenue, Modeled vs. Actual ........... 7.19 Figure 7-23 SR 91 Express EB, Sunday Full Toll Hourly Volume, Modeled vs. Actual ................ 7.19 Figure 7-24 SR 91 Express EB, Sunday Full Toll Hourly Revenue, Modeled vs. Actual .............. 7.20 Figure 7-25 SR 91 Express EB, Weekday Toll Curve, 4 GP/2XL vs. 5 GP/2 XL ............................ 7.21 Figure 8-1 SR 91 Express EB Tolls, 1997-1999 ............................................................................. 8.1 Figure 8-2 SR 91 Express WB Tolls, 1997-1999 ............................................................................ 8.2 Figure 8-3 SR 91 Express EB Tolls, 1997-2010 ............................................................................. 8.2 Figure 8-4 OCTA Toll Policy .......................................................................................................... 8.3 Figure 8-5 OCTA Toll Policy .......................................................................................................... 8.4 Figure 8-6 OCTA Toll Policy .......................................................................................................... 8.4 Figure 8-7 OCTA Toll Policy vs. Enhanced Toll Policy ................................................................... 8.6 Figure 9-1 Traffic’s Response to Toll Increases ............................................................................ 9.1 Figure 9-2 Typical Traffic vs. Revenue Curves .............................................................................. 9.2 Figure 9-3 Typical Traffic vs. Revenue Curves .............................................................................. 9.2 Figure 9-4 Typical Traffic vs. Revenue Curves .............................................................................. 9.3 Figure 9-5 Typical Traffic vs. Revenue Curves .............................................................................. 9.3 Figure 9-6 Typical Traffic vs. Revenue Curves .............................................................................. 9.4 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 91 v List of Tables Table 3-1 Average Traffic Volumes Recorded at Wavetronix Count Stations ............................. 3.2 Table 3-2 Weekday Traffic Volumes on SR-91 (Westbound) ...................................................... 3.4 Table 3-3 Weekday Traffic Volumes on SR-91 (Eastbound) ........................................................ 3.5 Table 3-4 Weekday Traffic Volumes on I-15 .............................................................................. 3.10 Table 3-5 Weekday Traffic Volumes on SR-71 ........................................................................... 3.11 Table 3-6 Total Traffic, HOV Traffic, and Toll Lane Traffic ......................................................... 3.15 Table 3-7 Average Weekday HOV Volumes and Percent of Total Volume ............................... 3.17 Table 3-8 Average Weekday Speeds Recorded by BluFax (Westbound)................................... 3.30 Table 3-9 Average Weekday Speeds Recorded by BluFax (Eastbound) .................................... 3.31 Table 3-10 Average Friday Speeds Recorded by BluFax ............................................................ 3.32 Table 3-11 Average Saturday Speeds Recorded by BluFax ........................................................ 3.32 Table 3-12 Average Sunday Speeds Recorded by BluFax .......................................................... 3.32 Table 3-13 Eastbound Weekday Speeds Recorded by PeMS on SR-91 (5AM – 10PM) ............ 3.34 Table 3-14 Westbound Weekday Speeds Recorded by PeMS on SR-91 (5AM – 10PM) ........... 3.35 Table 4-1 PB Study Area Employment and Household Forecast (Thousands) ............................ 4.1 Table 4-2 Forecast Methodology for Population Variables ....................................................... 4.10 Table 4-3 Forecast Methodology for Household Variables ....................................................... 4.10 Table 4-4 Forecast Methodology for Scholl Enrolement ........................................................... 4.10 Table 4-5 Forecast Methodology for Household Income .......................................................... 4.11 Table 4-6 Forecast Methodology for Workers ........................................................................... 4.11 Table 4-7 Forecast Methodology for Employment Variables .................................................... 4.11 Table 4-8 Total Employment Growth by County, 1990 – 2010 ................................................. 4.12 Table 4-9 Orange County Employment by Industry .................................................................. 4.16 Table 4-10 Riverside and San Bernardino County Employment by Industry............................. 4.16 Table 4-11 Growth of Total Residential Building Permits in the Study Area ............................. 4.18 Table 4-12 Annual Building Permits Issued in the 6 County Area, 2005 – 2010 ....................... 4.21 Table 4-13 2010 Base Year Total Jobs: EDD/PB vs. SCAG/OCP (thousands) ............................. 4.22 Table 4-14 2010 Base Year Households EDD/PB vs. SCAG/OCP (thousands) ............................ 4.22 Table 4-15 Comparisons of Long-Term Employment Projections (thousands) ......................... 4.25 Table 4-16 PB Employment Forecast by County (thousands) ................................................... 4.28 Table 4-17 Employment by Major Category (in thousands) ...................................................... 4.30 Table 4-18 Comparison of Long Term Households Projections (thousands) ............................ 4.31 Table 4-19 Historical Study Area Median Home Prices ............................................................. 4.33 Table 4-20 PB Household Forecast by County (thousands) ....................................................... 4.34 Table 4-21 PB Median Household Income Forecast (Nominal Dollars)..................................... 4.36 Table 5-1 Model Evaluation Summary ......................................................................................... 5-2 Table 5-2 Toll Diversion Coefficients ........................................................................................... 5.6 Table 5-3 Relevant Network Improvements ................................................................................ 5.8 Table 5-4 Volume/Count Assignment Accuracy Criteria by Functional Classification .............. 5.12 Table 5-5 Enhanced RivTAM Model Volume/Count Assignment Accuracy by Facility Type ..... 5.13 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 91 vi Table 5-6 Enhanced RivTAM Model Volume/Count Assignment Accuracy by Period .............. 5.13 Table 6-1 SR 91, Existing Conditions Model Number of Lanes .................................................... 6.3 Table 6-2 I-15, Existing Conditions Model Number of Lanes....................................................... 6.4 Table 6-3 Micro simulation Model Existing Volume Sources ...................................................... 6.4 Table 6-4 SR 91 Eastbound Global (GP & HOV) Traffic Count vs. Estimated Demand, 1-8 PM 6.13 Table 6-5 Count vs. Estimated Large Truck and Bus Percentages ............................................. 6.14 Table 6-6 Existing Conditions O/D Demand Table, 2-7 PM ....................................................... 6.14 Table 6-7 Car Following Model Parameters .............................................................................. 6.15 Table 6-8 SR 91 Eastbound Express Lane Tolls Modeled ........................................................... 6.17 Table 6-9 SR 91 Westbound Express Lane Tolls Modeled ......................................................... 6.18 Table 6-10 SR 91 Number of General Purpose Lanes ................................................................ 6.25 Table 6-11 I-15 Number of General Purpose and Express Lanes .............................................. 6.26 Table 6-12 2035 by 2020 Network O/D Matrix, 2-7 PM ............................................................ 6.28 Table 6-13 2035 by 2035 Network O/D Matrix, 2-7 PM ............................................................ 6.28 Table 6-14 EB HOT and GP Lane Speeds, 2035 by 2020 Network ............................................. 6.31 Table 6-15 (cont.) EB HOT and GP Lane Speeds, 2035 by 2020 Network ................................. 6.32 Table 6-16 Eastbound Express Lane VISSIM vs. Market Share Tolls, 2035 by 2020 Network 2 -7 PM .............................................................................................................................................. 6.34 Table 6-17 Express Lane Traffic and Revenue, 2035 by 2020 Network 2-7 PM ........................ 6.38 Table 6-18 EB HOT and GP Lane Speeds, 2035 by 2035 Network, Ultimate ............................. 6.43 Table 6-19 (cont.) EB HOT and GP Lane Speeds, 2035 by 2035 Network, Ultimate ................. 6.44 Table 6-20 Express Lane Traffic and Revenue, 2035 by 2035 Network 2-7 PM ........................ 6.49 Table 7-1 Eastbound Weekday Full Toll Traffic and Revenue, Model vs. Actual, 2008 to 2009 7.15 Table 8-1 2035 EB Toll Schedule, OCTA Toll Policy (2008 $s) ...................................................... 8.5 Table 8-2 2035 EB Toll Schedule, Enhanced Toll Policy (2008 $s) ............................................... 8.7 Table 8-3 Traffic and Revenue Estimates, OCTA Toll Policy ........................................................ 8.9 Table 8-4 Traffic and Revenue Estimates, Enhanced Toll Policy ............................................... 8.10 Table 9-1 Traffic and Revenue Estimates, Revenue Maximization Toll Policy ............................ 9.5 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 91 1.1 1.0 Introduction 1.1 PURPOSE AND FOCUS OF THE STUDY SR-91 is the only major surface transportation facility connecting Orange and Riverside Counties and is the primary daily commuting route between the counties. The rapidly growing population, driven in part by the relatively affordable housing market in Riverside County, coupled with increasing employment opportunities in Orange County, has resulted in a large number of Riverside County residents commuting to employment in Orange County. Based on long-term regional population and employment projections, this commute pattern is expected to continue and grow into the future. In addition, SR-91 is heavily used for goods movement from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to destinations in inland Southern California as well as other destinations across the United States. SR-91 currently has four general purpose (GP) lanes in each direction, with those lanes varying in width from 11 to 12 feet from the SR-241/SR-91 interchange in Orange County to the SR-91/I-15 interchange in Riverside County. Currently, there are two tolled Express Lanes (XL) in each direction on the SR-91 in Orange County that are heavily used by commuters, residents, commercial businesses, and others traveling to and from Riverside and Orange counties. The existing Express Lanes, operated by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), begin west of the SR-91/SR-55 interchange and terminate at the Riverside/Orange County line. This Project extends the Express Lanes to the east approximately eight miles into Riverside County to the I-15 interchange. SR-74 (Ortega Highway), an alternate route, is located approximately 20 miles south of SR -91 and carries about 12,000 vehicles per day (vpd). In stark contrast, SR -91 is currently used by more than 280,000 vpd at the Orange/Riverside County line, and this volume continues to grow. At the same time, SR-91 operates at stop-and-go conditions during the lengthy morning (westbound) and evening (eastbound) peak travel periods in the corridor. Traffic is forecast to increase by approximately 30 percent by 2035, further exacerbating the already long travel times and congestion in the corridor between the counties. As part of this project, the following tasks were undertaken:  Collecting existing traffic volumes and speed data along the SR-91, SR-71, and I-15;  Updating land use and socio-economic data for Riverside and surrounding counties;  Calibrating and validating the regional traffic model for the corridor under study;  Constructing a micro-simulation model to identify impacts to traffic operations;  Preparing traffic and revenue estimates for two toll policy alternatives; RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Introduction May 9, 2012 1.2 1.2 THE CONSULTANT TEAM Stantec Consulting Services Inc. ("Stantec") had the overall lead for the Traffic and Revenue Investment Grade Study and was responsible for project management and coordination, calibrating and validating the regional travel demand model, constructing and calibrating a corridor micro-simulation model and forecasting the future gross toll revenues to be derived from the Riverside County 91 Express Lanes Extension. Two firms assisted Stantec in this work effort:  PB Consult Inc. (“PB”) provided the socioeconomic and land use review of employment and household projections used in the traffic model.  DKS Associates (“DKS”) oversaw the data collection process and helped to summarize and analyze existing traffic volumes and speeds in the SR-91 study area. 1.3 OVERVIEW OF THE REPORT The following is a brief description of the contents of each chapter before the detailed presentation of the technical material:  Chapter 2: Project Description and Setting - describes the SR-91 corridor in the context of its regional settings.  Chapter 3: Existing Conditions – summarizes the data collected on the SR-91, SR-71, and I-15 including both traffic volumes and speeds.  Chapter 4: SocioEconomic Variables and Land Use - describes the assessment of the regional area’s economy and the small area forecast of future year occupied households and employment.  Chapter 5: Travel Demand Model - explains the methodology used to forecast future toll traffic and revenue for the SR-91 corridor based upon an adaptation of the RivTAM traffic model and toll diversion equations.  Chapter 6: Micro-Simulation Model – details the calibration and construction of an existing and future year micro-simulation model to analyze traffic operational impacts of the project.  Chapter 7: Market Share Curves – presents the methodology behind using existing revealed preference data on the OCTA 91 Express Lanes to forecast Express Lane usage for the project.  Chapter 8: Traffic and Revenue Estimates: presents the methodology behind the toll policies analyzed and the resulting traffic and revenue forecasts.  Chapter 9: Sensitivity Analyses RIVERSIDE COUNTY 91 2.1 2.0 Project Description and Setting 2.1 ROADWAY ALIGNMENT State Route 91 (SR-91) is an east-west limited access highway running from the I-405 in Los Angeles, California at its western end to the interchange of I-215 and SR-60 in Riverside County, CA on its eastern end. It connects to numerous other freeways in the Los Angeles area, including I-5, SR-241, SR-71, and I-15. The roadway provides a connection over the Santa Ana Mountains, and links the business centers of Los Angeles and Orange Counties to the residential areas of Riverside County. Additionally, the roadway provides a route via I-15 to the resort area of Las Vegas and other weekend destinations to the east . Figure 2-1 shows the SR-91 corridor in a regional context and outlines both the existing and proposed 91 Express Lanes. Figure 2-1 Map of Riverside County Express Lanes and Surrounding Area 2.2 EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS The transportation system in the SR-91 corridor consists mainly of freeways and signalized arterial roadways. A limited mass transit network is available. This section describes SR-91, the competing roadway network, intersecting routes, and the mass transit system. Riverside County Orange County Existing Express Lanes Proposed Express Lanes SR-91 I-15 SR-55 SR-241 SR-91 SR-71 RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Project Description and Setting May 9, 2012 2.2 2.2.1 State Route 91 SR-91 is the only major surface transportation facility connecting Orange and Riverside Counties and is the primary daily commuting route between the counties. The rapidly growing population, driven in part by the relatively affordable housing market in Riverside County, coupled with increasing employment opportunities in Orange County, has resulted in a large number of Riverside County residents commuting to employment in Orange County. Based on long-term regional population and employment projections, this commute pattern is expected to continue and grow into the future. In addition, SR-91 is heavily used for goods movement from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to destinations in inland Southern California as well as other destinations across the United States. SR-91 currently has four general purpose (GP) lanes in each direction, with those lanes varying in width from 11 to 12 feet from the SR-241/SR-91 interchange in Orange County to the SR-91/I-15 interchange in Riverside County. Currently, there are two tolled Express Lanes (XL) in each direction on the SR-91 in Orange County that are heavily used by commuters, residents, commercial businesses, and others traveling to and from Riverside and Orange counties. The existing Express Lanes, operated by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), begin west of the SR-91/SR-55 interchange and terminate at the Riverside/Orange County line. This Project extends the Express Lanes to the east approximately eight miles into Riverside County to the I-15 interchange. 2.2.2 Intersecting Routes State Route 91 is intersected at numerous locations in the study area. These intersecting routes range from limited access freeways to local collector roadways. Access to the express lanes will be provided only at its ends. Major intersecting roadways are described below and shown in Figure 2-2: 1. Green River Road is a 4-lane roadway with a diamond interchange at SR-91. To the northwest, Green River Road leads to a mostly residential and office de velopments. There is no outlet to the northwest on Green River Road. To the southeast, Green River Road turns eastward, and leads past commercial development towards residential areas and the City of Corona. 2. State Route 71 is a major limited access highway which leads northward from SR-91. A trumpet interchange provides the connection with SR-91. SR-71 leads to the northwest terminating in approximately 16 miles at I-10. Traffic may use SR-71 between the SR-91 corridor and the areas of Burbank and Pasadena, CA. 3. Serfas Club Drive is a 4-lane roadway with a center turning lane. A diamond interchange is provided at SR-91. To the north, Serfas Club Drive becomes Auto Center Drive, and the area is RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Project Description and Setting May 9, 2012 2.3 characterized by heavy commercial and office development. To the south, the roadway leads to mainly residential areas. 4. Maple Street is a 4-lane roadway with a center turn lane. To the north it leads to an area of mostly office and industrial uses, and to the south, it becomes 6th Street and leads to residential and commercial areas of Corona. A combination of a partial cloverleaf diamond interchanges are provided at Maple Street. 5. Lincoln Avenue is a 4-lane roadway with a center turning lane. A partial cloverleaf interchange is provided at SR-91. To the north, Lincoln Avenue leads to an area of mostly office development. South of SR-91 are commercial and residential areas. 6. Grand Boulevard is a 4-lane roadway with a center turning lane. Ramps are provided to and from the west on SR-91. Grand Boulevard is a circular roadway, following a 2,300 foot radius around the central business district of Corona. In the future, this interchange will be eliminated, and access to SR-91 will be provided at the Lincoln Avenue and North main Street interchanges. 7. North Main Street is a 4 to 6 lane roadway with center medians and turn lanes. To the south, the roadway leads through the central business district of Corona. To the north of the highway, North Main Street is generally lined with strip retail development. 8. Interstate Route 15 is a major north-south interstate highway running from southern California to northern Montana. The highway is 4 lanes in each direction. A large interchange is provided between SR-91 and I-15, with direct freeway to freeway ramps for most of the movements and a loop ramp for the southbound to westbound movement. Connections are proposed between the express lanes I-15. To the north, I 15 passes the city of Norco and travels across San Bernardino County, CA and into Nevada, towards Las Vegas. To the south, I- 15 provides a route to residential areas southeast of Corona, CA. The traffic on I -15 in the vicinity of this interchange is described in 3.1.2. 9. McKinley Street is a 4-lane divided roadway with a partial cloverleaf interchange at SR-91. The area surrounding the interchange is mainly commercial, and the roadway goes to residential areas to the north and the south. 10. Pierce Street is a 4-lane roadway with a median and center turning lanes. Access is only provided to and from the west on SR-91. The area near the interchange is mostly commercial, with residential areas beyond that. RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Project Description and Setting May 9, 2012 2.4 Figure 2-2 Map of Intersecting and Supporting Roadways 2.2.3 Supporting and Competing Routes Due to the topography in the area of the project, there is no major competing route in the project corridor. The nearest route through the Santa Ana Mountains between Riverside County and Orange County at the western end of the study area is Carbon Canyon Road (SR- 142), approximately 8 miles to the north. I-10 and SR-60 also provide east-west routes parallel to SR-91, however, they are over 10 miles north of the highway. The eastern portion of the highway corridor runs parallel to surface highways which may provide an alternate route. However, the geometry of these road ways and the development along them precludes them from handling a significant amount of the traffic using SR-91. Along the southern side of SR-91, Green River Road and Ontario Avenue provide access to the residential areas south of Corona, CA. Also parallel to SR-91 is 6th Street, which runs through the city of Corona. Traffic signals and development along the route lowers the viability of this road as an alternative route. RIVERSIDE COUNTY 91 3.1 3.0 Existing Conditions 3.1 TRAFFIC VOLUMES Traffic volumes in the SR-91 corridor were determined from three main sources. First, Wavetronix radar counts were collected at 7 locations along the corridor. Wavetronix radar counts provide vehicle volumes and average speeds for each lane of the highway in 15 -minute increments. It was decided that radar counts should be collected instead of using standard automatic traffic recorders (ATRs) since radar counts tend to gather more accurate traffic data during periods of intense traffic congestion, a major concern in th is corridor, particularly during the peak time periods. In addition, radar counts provide both traffic volumes and speeds. Given that a correlation exists between a decrease in corridor speed and an increase in express lane volume, having accurate speed data is extremely beneficial. The radar counts were conducted between November 2, 2010 and November 18, 2010. The Wavetronix count locations are shown in Figure 3-1. Figure 3-1 Location of Wavetronix Count Stations Second, traffic count data were downloaded from the Caltrans Freeway Performance Measurement System (PeMS). PeMS is a database tool designed by the University of California at Berkeley that collects traffic data, including flows, speeds, and hours of congestion on California freeways. Third, traffic volume data were provided by Orange County Transportation Authorit y (OCTA) for the toll lanes along SR-91 in Orange County. These data provided the toll and the HOV-3+ volume in hourly increments for both directions of the highway. 5 4 3 2 7 6 1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Existing Conditions May 9, 2012 3.2 3.1.1 Wavetronix Traffic Counts Radar traffic counts were conducted from November 2-18, 2010. At each location, one week of data was recorded. The Wavetronix counts showed the average 7-day traffic volume to be approximately 130,100 vehicles per day in each direction at the western end of the study area, between SR-241 and SR-71. Moving eastward, between SR-71 and I-15, westbound traffic was recorded to be approximately 122,000 vehicles per day while eastbound traffic was heavier. At the Wavetronix station just east of SR-71, an average of 127,000 vehicles per day were recorded eastbound during the 7-day count. At the count station further east, just to the west of I-15, 142,000 vehicles per day were recorded driving eastbound. East of I -15, the traffic counts recorded an average of 104,000 vehicles per day eastbound and 107,000 vehicles per day westbound. Over the course of the week, the traffic volumes were heaviest on Friday and lightest on Sunday. The Tuesday to Thursday volumes were fairly consistent, and Monday had the light est traffic volume on a weekday. Overall, the traffic volumes on Saturday were recorded to be higher than an average weekday, but lower than the Friday volume. A directional split can also be seen in the daily traffic volumes. The eastbound volumes are highest on Friday, and the westbound volumes on Sunday do not show as large a drop as is seen on the eastbound side of the roadway. Table 3-1 summarizes the daily traffic volumes recorded at each count location, and shows the daily traffic volumes as a percentage of the average 7-day volume recorded at each location (also see Figure 3-2) Table 3-1 Average Traffic Volumes Recorded at Wavetronix Count Stations Start End Start End Start End Start End 11/02 11/08 11/02 11/08 11/12 11/18 11/02 11/08 7-Day Average Daily Volume 130,196 127,050 142,479 103,646 Sunday 108,598 83.4%113,683 89.5%122,689 86.1%89,723 86.6% Monday 124,867 95.9%120,336 94.7%140,168 98.4%100,852 97.3% Tuesday 130,679 100.4%123,515 97.2%142,997 100.4%97,117 93.7% Wednesday 133,097 102.2%127,391 100.3%145,431 102.1%106,232 102.5% Thursday 135,786 104.3%126,982 99.9%141,982 99.7%110,465 106.6% Friday 142,226 109.2%140,206 110.4%155,969 109.5%112,164 108.2% Saturday 136,122 104.6%137,237 108.0%148,114 104.0%108,969 105.1% Start End Start End Start End Start End 11/12 11/18 11/02 11/08 11/02 11/08 11/02 11/08 7-Day Average Daily Volume 130,145 121,435 122,035 106,827 Sunday 117,182 90.0%115,697 95.3%122,950 100.7%97,881 91.6% Monday 130,141 100.0%116,040 95.6%113,551 93.0%101,611 95.1% Tuesday 129,467 99.5%119,901 98.7%117,541 96.3%108,857 101.9% Wednesday 132,434 101.8%120,240 99.0%115,029 94.3%106,283 99.5% Thursday 134,772 103.6%122,984 101.3%121,470 99.5%108,876 101.9% Friday 138,121 106.1%129,044 106.3%130,202 106.7%112,876 105.7% Saturday 128,899 99.0%126,139 103.9%133,504 109.4%111,408 104.3% 4. East of I-15 WestboundEastbound1. Between SR- 241 and SR-71 2. East of SR-71 3. West of I-15 Start and End Dates of Count Start and End Dates of Count RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Existing Conditions May 9, 2012 3.3 Figure 3-2 Daily Traffic Volume Recorded at Wavetronix Count Stations as a Percentage of Average 7-Day Traffic Volume Recorded The Wavetronix traffic counts gave traffic volumes in 15 -minute increments, allowing the distribution of traffic across the day to be analyzed. On Tuesday – Thursday, the traffic follows a directional pattern, with heavy westbound volumes in the morning and heavy eastbound volumes in the afternoon. 3.1.1.1 Westbound Weekday Traffic Volumes Westbound, the morning peak is most clearly defined on the western end of the study area, where traffic passes into Orange County. In the morning, traffic volumes build from east to west, reaching their highest values at the Wavetronix count station between SR-241 and SR-71. During the heaviest hour (7AM-8AM), approximately 7.8 percent of the daily weekday traffic passed by that station. At the western end of the study area, the heaviest westbound traffic is concentrated between 5AM and 9AM, with over a quarter of the dai ly traffic passes during those four hours. Upstream, at the Wavetronix station just to the west of I-15, traffic volumes rise in the 4AM and 5AM hours and then drop by over 35 percent in the 6AM hour. This corresponds to a severe drop in speeds, as described in Section 3.2.1. This congestion may have constrained the traffic volume at this location. At the eastern end of the study area, east of I-15, traffic was more uniform throughout the day, and the morning peak period was not 80.0% 85.0% 90.0% 95.0% 100.0% 105.0% 110.0% 115.0% 120.0% Sunday Monday -Thursday Friday SaturdayPercent of Average 7-Day Traffic VolumeEastbound Westbound RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Existing Conditions May 9, 2012 3.4 heavier than the traffic during the remainder of the day. A westbound morning peak can still be inferred at the eastern end due to the early hour at which traffic volumes begin to rise from the overnight low. For example, 5.8% of the daily traffic passed by this station during the 5AM to 6AM hour in the westbound direction, far higher than the 2.0% that passed by in the eastbound direction in the same hour (See Table 3-2 and Figure 3-3). A westbound afternoon peak was recorded at both ends of the study area. This peak remains well below the morning peak at the two western Wavetronix count locations. At the two eastern locations, it does surpass the morning peak, however the vehicle speeds described in Section 3.2.1 confirm that the most severe congestion occurs during the morning. 3.1.1.2 Eastbound Weekday Traffic Volumes In the eastbound direction there is a small morning peak and a heavy afternoon peak. The heaviest eastbound traffic occurs during the 3PM to 7PM hours (see Table 3-3 and Figure 3-4). Between SR-241 and SR-71, eastbound traffic volumes peak in the 6PM hour, and 7.4 percent of the daily traffic passed the Wavetronix count station in that hour. Moving east along the corridor, the afternoon peak occurs earlier in the day. The highest hour at the location just east of SR-71 is 5PM – 6PM, and the highest hour just to the west of I-15 is 3P – 4PM. Table 3-2 Weekday Traffic Volumes on SR-91 (Westbound) 1. Between SR-241 and SR-71 2. East of SR-71 3. West of I-15 4. East of I-15 11/15, 11/17, 11/18 11/2, 11/3, 11/4, and 11/8 11/2, 11/3, 11/4, and 11/8 11/2, 11/3, 11/4, and 11/8 Hour Start End 12:00 AM 1:00 AM 1,295 1.0%1,017 0.8%1,191 1.0%906 0.8% 1:00 AM 2:00 AM 949 0.7%1,065 0.9%946 0.8%687 0.6% 2:00 AM 3:00 AM 1,128 0.9%1,129 0.9%1,019 0.9%695 0.6% 3:00 AM 4:00 AM 1,978 1.5%2,571 2.1%1,902 1.6%1,380 1.3% 4:00 AM 5:00 AM 5,762 4.4%5,777 4.8%5,915 5.1%4,335 4.0% 5:00 AM 6:00 AM 9,328 7.0%8,533 7.1%6,322 5.4%6,258 5.8% 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 9,892 7.5%7,275 6.1%4,076 3.5%4,756 4.4% 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 10,375 7.8%7,640 6.4%4,249 3.6%5,026 4.7% 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 9,469 7.1%7,811 6.5%5,023 4.3%5,524 5.2% 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 8,400 6.3%7,215 6.0%6,098 5.2%5,658 5.3% 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 7,193 5.4%6,852 5.7%7,005 6.0%5,604 5.2% 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 6,536 4.9%6,326 5.3%6,966 6.0%5,937 5.5% 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 6,195 4.7%5,892 4.9%6,891 5.9%6,035 5.6% 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 6,285 4.7%5,997 5.0%6,873 5.9%5,899 5.5% 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 6,306 4.8%6,359 5.3%7,157 6.1%6,500 6.1% 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 6,554 4.9%6,659 5.6%7,390 6.3%6,642 6.2% 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 7,173 5.4%6,899 5.8%7,405 6.3%6,539 6.1% 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7,174 5.4%6,495 5.4%7,201 6.2%6,722 6.3% 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 5,870 4.4%5,313 4.4%6,508 5.6%6,203 5.8% 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 4,147 3.1%3,896 3.3%4,891 4.2%4,745 4.4% 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 3,259 2.5%3,098 2.6%3,873 3.3%3,761 3.5% 9:00 PM 10:00 PM 3,050 2.3%2,757 2.3%3,593 3.1%3,425 3.2% 10:00 PM 11:00 PM 2,413 1.8%2,059 1.7%2,660 2.3%2,408 2.2% 11:00 PM 12:00 AM 1,718 1.3%1,162 1.0%1,748 1.5%1,537 1.4% 12:00 AM 11:59 PM 132,449 100.00%119,791 100.00%116,898 100.00%107,178 100.00% Westbound Dates RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Existing Conditions May 9, 2012 3.5 Table 3-3 Weekday Traffic Volumes on SR-91 (Eastbound) 1. Between SR-241 and SR-71 2. East of SR-71 3. West of I-15 4. East of I-15 11/2, 11/3, 11/4, and 11/8 11/2, 11/3, 11/4, and 11/8 11/15, 11/16, 11/17 11/3, 11/4, 11/8 Hour Start End 12:00 AM 1:00 AM 1,708 1.3%1,400 1.1%1,798 1.3%1,334 1.3% 1:00 AM 2:00 AM 1,093 0.8%1,001 0.8%1,161 0.8%824 0.8% 2:00 AM 3:00 AM 932 0.7%944 0.8%1,009 0.7%679 0.6% 3:00 AM 4:00 AM 933 0.7%1,092 0.9%1,161 0.8%697 0.7% 4:00 AM 5:00 AM 1,310 1.0%2,153 1.7%1,830 1.3%1,017 1.0% 5:00 AM 6:00 AM 2,829 2.2%3,880 3.1%3,893 2.7%2,170 2.0% 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 5,065 3.9%5,319 4.3%6,259 4.4%4,361 4.1% 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 6,524 5.0%6,183 5.0%7,571 5.3%6,108 5.8% 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 6,659 5.1%6,523 5.2%7,458 5.2%5,368 5.1% 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 5,952 4.5%5,857 4.7%7,440 5.2%5,112 4.8% 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 5,509 4.2%5,750 4.6%7,204 5.0%5,206 4.9% 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 5,671 4.3%5,877 4.7%7,342 5.1%5,412 5.1% 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 6,152 4.7%6,659 5.3%7,783 5.4%5,806 5.5% 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 6,980 5.3%7,373 5.9%8,370 5.9%6,172 5.8% 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 8,322 6.3%7,512 6.0%9,084 6.4%6,830 6.5% 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 8,897 6.8%8,058 6.5%9,300 6.5%7,121 6.7% 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 9,351 7.1%8,101 6.5%8,895 6.2%6,988 6.6% 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 9,332 7.1%8,322 6.7%8,762 6.1%7,020 6.6% 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 9,720 7.4%8,315 6.7%8,662 6.1%7,021 6.6% 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 8,945 6.8%7,811 6.3%8,540 6.0%6,134 5.8% 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 6,608 5.0%5,646 4.5%6,505 4.6%4,906 4.6% 9:00 PM 10:00 PM 5,493 4.2%5,034 4.0%5,612 3.9%4,182 4.0% 10:00 PM 11:00 PM 4,381 3.3%3,555 2.9%4,237 3.0%3,288 3.1% 11:00 PM 12:00 AM 2,745 2.1%2,192 1.8%2,989 2.1%2,095 2.0% 12:00 AM 11:59 PM 131,107 100.00%124,556 100.00%142,865 100.00%105,850 100.00% Dates Eastbound RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Existing Conditions May 9, 2012 3.6 Figure 3-3 Profile of Weekday Traffic Volumes on SR-91 (Westbound) Figure 3-4 Profile of Weekday Traffic Volumes on SR-91 (Eastbound) 1. SR-91 Westbound Between SR-241 and SR-71 2. SR-91 Westbound East of SR-71 3. SR-91 Westbound West of I-15 4. SR-91 Westbound East of I-15 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 8.0% 9.0% 10.0% 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 8.0% 9.0% 10.0% 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 8.0% 9.0% 10.0% 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 8.0% 9.0% 10.0% 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM 1. SR-91 Eastbound Between SR-241 and SR-71 2. SR-91 Eastbound East of SR-71 1. SR-91 Westbound Between SR-241 and SR-71 3. SR-91 Eastbound West of I-15 4. SR-91 Eastbound East of I-15 3. SR-91 Westbound West of I-15 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 8.0% 9.0% 10.0% 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 8.0% 9.0% 10.0% 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 8.0% 9.0% 10.0% 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 8.0% 9.0% 10.0% 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Existing Conditions May 9, 2012 3.7 3.1.1.3 Friday and Weekend Traffic Volumes On Friday, the overall traffic volume on SR-91 is higher than on the average weekday. In the eastbound direction, traffic volumes are higher in the midday time pe riod, approximately from 9AM to 2PM, and in the late evening, after 7PM. While the overall daily volumes on Friday are higher than during a typical weekday, the maximum hourly volumes recorded on Friday are similar to the volumes recorded on typical weekdays. In the westbound direction, traffic volumes are similar in the morning period, but become higher for the remainder of the day. Saturday volumes recorded on SR-91 are heavier than the volumes recorded during the week, but the traffic is more evenly distributed throughout the day. As is typical for weekend traffic, the profile of traffic on Saturday does not show a large morning peak like found during the workweek. In the westbound direction, the peak Saturday volumes on the western end of the highway corridor remain well below the highest volumes recorded westbound during the morning peak period. In the eastbound direction, the maximum hourly volumes recorded on Saturday are similar to the maximum volumes recorded during the week. Sunday volumes on SR-91 follow a similar profile as Saturday volumes, with the daily totals being approximately 18 percent lower in the eastbound direction and 9 percent lower in the westbound direction. At the four count locations on SR -91, Sunday traffic volumes were generally much lower than Saturday volumes prior to 10 AM. For the remainder of the day, eastbound volumes remained approximately 10 – 20 percent lower on Sunday than on Saturday. Westbound volumes however reached similar levels on Sunday afternoons as they reached on Saturday afternoons. Figure 3-5 through Figure 3-8 show the traffic volumes at the four Wavetronix count locations by day of week. Figure 3-5 Traffic Volumes on SR-91 by Day of Week, Between SR-241 and SR-71 Westbound Eastbound 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 12:00 AM2:00 AM4:00 AM6:00 AM8:00 AM10:00 AM12:00 PM2:00 PM4:00 PM6:00 PM8:00 PM10:00 PM12:00 AMTraffic VolumeHour Start Monday-Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 12:00 AM2:00 AM4:00 AM6:00 AM8:00 AM10:00 AM12:00 PM2:00 PM4:00 PM6:00 PM8:00 PM10:00 PM12:00 AMTraffic VolumeHour Start Monday-Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Existing Conditions May 9, 2012 3.8 Figure 3-6 Traffic Volumes on SR-91 by Day of Week, East of SR-71 Figure 3-7 Traffic Volumes on SR-91 by Day of Week, West of I-15 Westbound Eastbound 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 12:00 AM2:00 AM4:00 AM6:00 AM8:00 AM10:00 AM12:00 PM2:00 PM4:00 PM6:00 PM8:00 PM10:00 PM12:00 AMTraffic VolumeHour Start Monday-Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 12:00 AM2:00 AM4:00 AM6:00 AM8:00 AM10:00 AM12:00 PM2:00 PM4:00 PM6:00 PM8:00 PM10:00 PM12:00 AMTraffic VolumeHour Start Monday-Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Westbound Eastbound 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 12:00 AM2:00 AM4:00 AM6:00 AM8:00 AM10:00 AM12:00 PM2:00 PM4:00 PM6:00 PM8:00 PM10:00 PM12:00 AMTraffic VolumeHour Start Monday-Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 12:00 AM2:00 AM4:00 AM6:00 AM8:00 AM10:00 AM12:00 PM2:00 PM4:00 PM6:00 PM8:00 PM10:00 PM12:00 AMTraffic VolumeHour Start Monday-Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Existing Conditions May 9, 2012 3.9 Figure 3-8 Traffic Volumes on SR-91 by Day of Week, East of I-15 3.1.2 Major Intersecting Roadways Volumes Two major roadways intersect with SR-91 in the study area, I-15 and SR-71. Traffic on I-15 follows a similar daily profile to traffic on SR-91, especially to the south of SR-91. Northbound traffic on I-15 shows a similar pattern as westbound traffic on SR-91, and southbound traffic on I-15 shares a daily pattern with eastbound t raffic. In the northbound direction on I-15, the typical weekday traffic is heavier south of SR-91, and overall vehicles exit I-15 and join SR-91. The only time period when I-15 northbound gains traffic from SR-91 is during the morning peak period from 5AM to 8AM. For the remainder of the day, and especially in the afternoon peak period, northbound traffic becomes lighter as the highway crosses SR-91. On I-15 southbound, traffic peaks in the afternoon, with SR-91 adding traffic to the highway. In the heaviest hour of the afternoon, 4PM to 5PM, approximately 5,900 southbound vehicles were recorded north of SR-91 and approximately 6,900 were recorded south of SR-91. This pattern is fairly consistent throughout the day, and most prominent between 6PM and 10PM, when each hour, over 1,000 additional vehicles were recorded south of SR-91 than north of SR-91. Weekday traffic on I-15 is summarized in Table 3-4 and Figure 3-9. On Friday, traffic is heavier on I-15 than during the week, with the majority of the additional traffic during the midday and evening periods. On Saturday and Sunday, traffic is much lower on I-15 to the north of SR-91, while to the south of SR-91, Saturday records a traffic volume higher than was recorded during the week. Westbound Eastbound 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 12:00 AM2:00 AM4:00 AM6:00 AM8:00 AM10:00 AM12:00 PM2:00 PM4:00 PM6:00 PM8:00 PM10:00 PM12:00 AMTraffic VolumeHour Start Monday-Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 12:00 AM2:00 AM4:00 AM6:00 AM8:00 AM10:00 AM12:00 PM2:00 PM4:00 PM6:00 PM8:00 PM10:00 PM12:00 AMTraffic VolumeHour Start Monday-Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Existing Conditions May 9, 2012 3.10 Table 3-4 Weekday Traffic Volumes on I-15 Figure 3-9 Weekday Traffic Volumes on I-15, South and North of SR-91 South of SR-91 North of SR-91 South of SR-91 North of SR-91 11/15, 11/16, 11/17, 11/18 11/15, 11/16, 11/17, 11/18 11/15, 11/16, 11/17, 11/18 11/15, 11/16, 11/17, 11/18 Hour Start End 12:00 AM 1:00 AM 988 1.0%774 1.0%922 1.0%695 0.8% 1:00 AM 2:00 AM 629 0.6%500 0.6%675 0.7%502 0.6% 2:00 AM 3:00 AM 549 0.6%488 0.6%660 0.7%462 0.6% 3:00 AM 4:00 AM 777 0.8%743 0.9%1,034 1.1%609 0.7% 4:00 AM 5:00 AM 1,508 1.5%1,746 2.2%2,978 3.1%1,441 1.7% 5:00 AM 6:00 AM 2,774 2.8%3,159 3.9%4,175 4.4%4,232 5.1% 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 3,953 4.1%3,243 4.0%4,753 5.0%5,540 6.6% 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 5,312 5.4%4,424 5.5%6,040 6.3%6,261 7.5% 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 5,258 5.4%4,507 5.6%5,540 5.8%5,247 6.3% 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 4,808 4.9%4,196 5.2%5,128 5.4%4,885 5.8% 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 4,783 4.9%4,046 5.1%5,102 5.3%4,664 5.6% 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 5,033 5.2%3,994 5.0%5,210 5.4%4,657 5.6% 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 5,308 5.4%4,479 5.6%5,428 5.7%4,488 5.4% 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 5,616 5.8%4,623 5.8%5,376 5.6%4,536 5.4% 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 6,367 6.5%5,304 6.6%5,846 6.1%4,803 5.7% 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 6,667 6.8%5,806 7.3%6,412 6.7%4,937 5.9% 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6,887 7.1%5,916 7.4%6,588 6.9%5,074 6.1% 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 6,368 6.5%5,591 7.0%6,228 6.5%5,067 6.1% 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 6,376 6.5%5,027 6.3%5,118 5.3%4,286 5.1% 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 5,322 5.5%3,460 4.3%3,751 3.9%3,398 4.1% 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 4,365 4.5%2,764 3.5%2,995 3.1%2,711 3.2% 9:00 PM 10:00 PM 3,688 3.8%2,397 3.0%2,637 2.8%2,422 2.9% 10:00 PM 11:00 PM 2,581 2.6%1,738 2.2%1,880 2.0%1,646 2.0% 11:00 PM 12:00 AM 1,615 1.7%1,145 1.4%1,230 1.3%1,097 1.3% 12:00 AM 11:59 PM 97,529 100.0%80,069 100.0%95,705 100.0%83,658 100.0% Southbound Dates Northbound I-15 Southbound I-15 Northbound 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM South of SR-91 North of SR-91 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM South of SR-91 North of SR-91 RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Existing Conditions May 9, 2012 3.11 SR-71 leads north from SR-91, and shows a clear southbound peak in the morning and a northbound peak in the afternoon. As with SR-91 and I-15, overall traffic volumes are highest on Friday. Saturday and Sunday show lower volumes than during the week. SR-71 weekday volumes are summarized in Table 3-5 and Figure 3-10. Table 3-5 Weekday Traffic Volumes on SR-71 Figure 3-10 Weekday Traffic Volumes on SR-71 South of SR-91 South of SR-91 11/15, 11/16, 11/17, 11/18 11/15, 11/16, 11/17, 11/18 Hour Start End 12:00 AM 1:00 AM 262 0.7%275 0.8% 1:00 AM 2:00 AM 181 0.5%207 0.6% 2:00 AM 3:00 AM 147 0.4%206 0.6% 3:00 AM 4:00 AM 253 0.7%321 0.9% 4:00 AM 5:00 AM 656 1.8%823 2.3% 5:00 AM 6:00 AM 1,862 5.0%1,156 3.3% 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 2,829 7.6%1,275 3.6% 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 3,073 8.3%1,791 5.1% 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 2,829 7.6%1,275 3.6% 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 2,281 6.1%1,867 5.3% 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 1,719 4.6%1,657 4.7% 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1,606 4.3%1,759 5.0% 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 1,700 4.6%1,823 5.2% 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 1,809 4.9%1,926 5.5% 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 1,942 5.2%2,155 6.1% 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 2,042 5.5%2,448 6.9% 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 2,223 6.0%2,869 8.1% 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 2,486 6.7%3,098 8.8% 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 2,223 6.0%2,869 8.1% 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 1,472 4.0%1,875 5.3% 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 1,256 3.4%1,277 3.6% 9:00 PM 10:00 PM 1,018 2.7%1,114 3.2% 10:00 PM 11:00 PM 836 2.2%751 2.1% 11:00 PM 12:00 AM 493 1.3%464 1.3% 12:00 AM 11:59 PM 37,197 100.0%35,278 100.0% Southbound Northbound Dates SR-71 Southbound SR-71 Northbound 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Existing Conditions May 9, 2012 3.12 3.1.3 PEMS Traffic Counts To verify the traffic volumes obtained by the Wavetronix traffic counters, and obtain traffic volumes for the ramps leading to and from SR-91, traffic data were downloaded from the Caltrans Performance Measurement System (PeMS). PeMS is a basic system management tool that was jointly developed by Caltrans and the Partners f or Advanced Transit and Highways at the University of California, Berkeley. PeMS provides historical and real-time traffic data from a consolidated database of information collected via Caltrans loop detectors in metropolitan areas of California. Traffic volume and speed data were obtained from the PeMS databases for the vehicle detector stations in the project study area for October and November. PeMS volumes at two locations nearby the Wavetronix count locations were obtained for an average Tuesday – Thursday in November 2010 and March 2011 to verify the Wavetronix data. These data are plotted in Figure 3-11 to Figure 3-14. As can be seen in the figures, the overall traffic volumes remained fairly constant when measured by the two sources, and from month to month. Figure 3-11 Westbound Wavetronix and PeMS Data at Wavetronix Location 2 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 12:00 AM2:00 AM4:00 AM6:00 AM8:00 AM10:00 AM12:00 PM2:00 PM4:00 PM6:00 PM8:00 PM10:00 PM12:00 AMTraffic VolumeHour Start November 2010 Wavetronix March 2011 PEMS November 2010 PEMS 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 8.0% 9.0% 10.0%12:00 AM2:00 AM4:00 AM6:00 AM8:00 AM10:00 AM12:00 PM2:00 PM4:00 PM6:00 PM8:00 PM10:00 PM12:00 AMPercentage of Daily TrafficHour Start November 2010 Wavetronix March 2011 PEMS November 2010 PEMS RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Existing Conditions May 9, 2012 3.13 Figure 3-12 Westbound Wavetronix and PeMS data at Wavetronix Location 3 Figure 3-13 Eastbound Wavetronix and PeMS Data at Wavetronix Location 2 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 12:00 AM2:00 AM4:00 AM6:00 AM8:00 AM10:00 AM12:00 PM2:00 PM4:00 PM6:00 PM8:00 PM10:00 PM12:00 AMTraffic VolumeHour Start November 2010 Wavetronix March 2011 PEMS November 2010 PEMS 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 8.0% 9.0% 10.0%12:00 AM2:00 AM4:00 AM6:00 AM8:00 AM10:00 AM12:00 PM2:00 PM4:00 PM6:00 PM8:00 PM10:00 PM12:00 AMPercentage of Daily TrafficHour Start November 2010 Wavetronix March 2011 PEMS November 2010 PEMS 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 12:00 AM2:00 AM4:00 AM6:00 AM8:00 AM10:00 AM12:00 PM2:00 PM4:00 PM6:00 PM8:00 PM10:00 PM12:00 AMTraffic VolumeHour Start November 2010 Wavetronix March 2011 PEMS November 2010 PEMS 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 8.0% 9.0% 10.0%12:00 AM2:00 AM4:00 AM6:00 AM8:00 AM10:00 AM12:00 PM2:00 PM4:00 PM6:00 PM8:00 PM10:00 PM12:00 AMPercentage of Daily TrafficHour Start November 2010 Wavetronix March 2011 PEMS November 2010 PEMS RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Existing Conditions May 9, 2012 3.14 Figure 3-14 Eastbound Wavetronix and PeMS Data at Wavetronix Location 3 In addition to providing mainline traffic volumes, the PeMS data provided hourly volumes for many of the on and off ramps connecting to SR-91. 3.1.4 OCTA Transaction Data Traffic count data from the Orange County Transportation Authority were also available to Stantec for the 91 Express Lanes in Orange County, just west of the study area. These data provide toll road usage data for a comparable facility. Additionally, since there are no entrance or exit points between the end of the Orange County toll lanes and the count conducted for this project between SR-241 and SR-71, it is possible to compare the data from the two sources. In the toll lanes in Orange County, HOV-3+ are allowed to travel paying a reduced toll. As shown in Table 3-6 HOV-3+ traffic volumes peak at close to 600 vehicles per hour in both the AM and PM time peak periods. This represents about 6% of the total traffic in the corridor during those hours. Since there are no entrances or exits from the SR-91 toll lanes other than at its endpoints, the HOV-3+ volume on the roadway may be higher, with some high occupancy vehicles exiting prior to the terminus of the toll lanes and unable to use them. These HOV -3+ data are similar to the conditions in the proposed to ll lanes in Riverside County, where vehicles with 3 or more occupants will also be allowed to ride for free. The OCTA transaction data also provides the traffic volume using the toll lanes. As shown in Table 3-6, and in Figure 3-15 and Figure 3-16 the toll traffic is highest during the morning and afternoon peak periods. In both directions, toll traffic appears largest when more than 6,000 vehicles per hour are using the corridor. As can be seen, traffic in the general purpose lanes reaches a limit during the peak periods while tolled and HOV traffic continues to grow. 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 12:00 AM2:00 AM4:00 AM6:00 AM8:00 AM10:00 AM12:00 PM2:00 PM4:00 PM6:00 PM8:00 PM10:00 PM12:00 AMTraffic VolumeHour Start November 2010 Wavetronix March 2011 PEMS November 2010 PEMS 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 8.0% 9.0% 10.0%12:00 AM2:00 AM4:00 AM6:00 AM8:00 AM10:00 AM12:00 PM2:00 PM4:00 PM6:00 PM8:00 PM10:00 PM12:00 AMPercentage of Daily TrafficHour Start November 2010 Wavetronix March 2011 PEMS November 2010 PEMS RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Existing Conditions May 9, 2012 3.15 Table 3-6 Total Traffic, HOV Traffic, and Toll Lane Traffic at Eastern End of OCTA Toll Lanes (Average Weekday) Start End Total Traffic HOV Toll HOT Traffic Total Traffic HOV Toll HOT Traffic 12:00 AM 1:00 1,708 10 31 41 1,295 3 9 12 1:00 AM 2:00 1,093 5 10 15 949 1 4 5 2:00 AM 3:00 932 3 6 10 1,128 2 5 7 3:00 AM 4:00 933 2 4 5 1,978 24 24 48 4:00 AM 5:00 1,310 2 15 18 5,762 222 312 534 5:00 AM 6:00 2,829 17 76 93 9,328 509 1,247 1,756 6:00 AM 7:00 5,065 29 170 199 9,892 600 1,778 2,378 7:00 AM 8:00 6,524 27 303 330 10,375 493 1,842 2,335 8:00 AM 9:00 6,659 36 329 365 9,469 223 1,633 1,855 9:00 AM 10:00 5,952 37 313 350 8,400 187 1,211 1,398 10:00 AM 11:00 5,509 34 334 367 7,193 133 871 1,004 11:00 AM 12:00 5,671 47 415 462 6,536 90 612 702 12:00 PM 13:00 6,152 61 563 624 6,195 93 508 601 1:00 PM 14:00 6,980 115 823 938 6,285 83 486 569 2:00 PM 15:00 8,322 229 1,477 1,705 6,306 88 503 591 3:00 PM 16:00 8,897 491 2,256 2,747 6,554 111 564 675 4:00 PM 17:00 9,351 510 2,430 2,939 7,173 119 626 746 5:00 PM 18:00 9,332 497 2,437 2,934 7,174 126 585 712 6:00 PM 19:00 9,720 588 2,360 2,948 5,870 82 394 476 7:00 PM 20:00 8,945 361 1,484 1,845 4,147 51 159 209 8:00 PM 21:00 6,608 212 716 928 3,259 26 108 133 9:00 PM 22:00 5,493 167 407 574 3,050 20 76 96 10:00 PM 23:00 4,381 95 226 321 2,413 12 38 50 11:00 PM 0:00 2,745 34 80 114 1,718 6 15 20 12:00 AM 24:00 131,107 3,606 17,262 20,868 132,449 3,304 13,610 16,914 Eastbound Westbound RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Existing Conditions May 9, 2012 3.16 Figure 3-15 Westbound Weekday OCTA HOV and Toll Volumes and Wavetronix Total Volume Figure 3-16 Eastbound Weekday OCTA HOV and Toll Volumes and Wavetronix Total Volume 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 12:00 AM1:00 AM2:00 AM3:00 AM4:00 AM5:00 AM6:00 AM7:00 AM8:00 AM9:00 AM10:00 AM11:00 AM12:00 PM1:00 PM2:00 PM3:00 PM4:00 PM5:00 PM6:00 PM7:00 PM8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PMTraffic VolumeHOV Toll GP Traffic Total Traffic 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 12:00 AM1:00 AM2:00 AM3:00 AM4:00 AM5:00 AM6:00 AM7:00 AM8:00 AM9:00 AM10:00 AM11:00 AM12:00 PM1:00 PM2:00 PM3:00 PM4:00 PM5:00 PM6:00 PM7:00 PM8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PMTraffic VolumeHOV Toll GP Traffic Total Traffic RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Existing Conditions May 9, 2012 3.17 3.1.5 HOV Data At present, in Riverside County, high occupancy vehicles with two or more occupants (HOV -2+) are allowed to use an HOV lane on SR-91. The Wavetronix traffic counts provided traffic data on a lane-by-lane basis, making it possible to break out the percentage of traffic using the HOV lane. Since Riverside County allows vehicles with only two o ccupants to use the HOV lane, and there are more entry and exit points from the lane than the Orange County Express lanes, the HOV volumes are higher in Riverside County than in Orange County. Table 3-7 shows the HOV volumes at the three Wavetronix count locations on SR-91. As shown in the table and in Figure 3-17 through Figure 3-19, the HOV-2+ volume rises to over 1,000 vehicles per hour in the morning and afternoon peak periods. In the morning, almost a quarter of the traffic in the 6AM hour is made up of HOV vehicles at the count station to the west of I-15. The HOV traffic during the 6AM and 7AM hours makes up such a large percentage of the total traffic during those hours because the tr affic in the general purpose lanes drops greatly, likely due conditions breaking down due to congestion. In the morning, the hour with the highest volume of HOV traffic is 5AM to 6AM. In the afternoon, the highest HOV volumes are in the 4PM hour. Just e ast of SR-71, over 17% of the total traffic is HOV vehicles between 3PM and 7PM. On Friday and Saturday, and Sunday, HOV traffic on SR-91 was heavier than during the week. On Sunday, HOV traffic westbound remained high, while eastbound HOV traffic was lower. HOV Volumes by day of week are shown in Figure 3-20 through Figure 3-22. Table 3-7 Average Weekday HOV Volumes and Percent of Total Volume Start End HOV HOV %HOV HOV %HOV HOV %HOV HOV %HOV HOV %HOV HOV % 12:00 AM 1:00 AM 32 2.29%100 5.58%34 2.52%41 4.06%69 5.75%45 4.94% 1:00 AM 2:00 AM 19 1.92%81 7.01%13 1.58%45 4.18%56 5.87%36 5.17% 2:00 AM 3:00 AM 25 2.62%81 7.99%6 0.83%49 4.30%62 6.06%42 6.01% 3:00 AM 4:00 AM 22 1.97%88 7.61%5 0.77%206 7.99%109 5.72%84 6.07% 4:00 AM 5:00 AM 52 2.39%88 4.83%10 1.02%635 10.99%512 8.66%483 11.13% 5:00 AM 6:00 AM 145 3.72%156 4.02%51 2.35%1,325 15.52%1,166 18.44%1,233 19.71% 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 273 5.12%287 4.59%189 4.34%1,215 16.70%979 24.02%885 18.60% 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 306 4.95%404 5.33%335 5.48%1,278 16.73%889 20.92%883 17.56% 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 445 6.81%380 5.09%297 5.53%1,206 15.44%904 18.00%1,133 20.51% 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 357 6.09%421 5.66%349 6.83%925 12.81%758 12.43%982 17.35% 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 374 6.50%409 5.68%282 5.41%863 12.59%711 10.15%900 16.06% 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 412 7.01%430 5.86%303 5.60%732 11.57%620 8.90%789 13.29% 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 568 8.52%470 6.04%336 5.79%648 10.99%579 8.40%751 12.44% 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 860 11.66%629 7.52%491 7.95%669 11.16%611 8.88%834 14.14% 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 1,173 15.62%871 9.58%707 10.36%698 10.97%620 8.66%856 13.17% 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 1,431 17.76%1,052 11.31%922 12.95%766 11.50%674 9.12%897 13.50% 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 1,434 17.70%1,163 13.07%1,012 14.48%764 11.07%647 8.73%849 12.98% 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 1,440 17.31%1,141 13.03%946 13.48%663 10.20%646 8.98%921 13.70% 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 1,484 17.84%996 11.50%923 13.15%556 10.47%592 9.10%791 12.74% 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 1,073 13.74%885 10.36%777 12.66%335 8.59%361 7.37%394 8.30% 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 483 8.55%496 7.62%551 11.24%231 7.45%256 6.61%250 6.64% 9:00 PM 10:00 PM 380 7.54%389 6.93%315 7.53%182 6.61%242 6.72%208 6.06% 10:00 PM 11:00 PM 181 5.09%307 7.25%207 6.31%120 5.82%178 6.69%143 5.94% 11:00 PM 12:00 AM 71 3.25%198 6.63%91 4.36%61 5.25%123 7.02%86 5.58% 12:00 AM 11:59 PM 13,036 10.5%11,524 8.1%9,152 8.6%14,208 11.9%12,360 10.6%14,470 13.5% Eastbound Westbound 2. East of SR-71 3. West of I-15 4.East of I-15 2. East of SR-71 3. West of I-15 4. East of I-15 RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Existing Conditions May 9, 2012 3.18 Figure 3-17 Average Weekday Traffic East of SR-71 Broken into HOV and GP Figure 3-18 Average Weekday Traffic West of I-15 Broken into HOV and GP Figure 3-19 Average Weekday Traffic East of I-15 Broken into HOV and GP Westbound Eastbound 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 12:00 AM2:00 AM4:00 AM6:00 AM8:00 AM10:00 AM12:00 PM2:00 PM4:00 PM6:00 PM8:00 PM10:00 PMTraffic VolumeHour Start WB HOV WB GP WB Total 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 12:00 AM2:00 AM4:00 AM6:00 AM8:00 AM10:00 AM12:00 PM2:00 PM4:00 PM6:00 PM8:00 PM10:00 PMTraffic VolumeHour Start EB HOV EB GP EB Total Westbound Eastbound 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 12:00 AM2:00 AM4:00 AM6:00 AM8:00 AM10:00 AM12:00 PM2:00 PM4:00 PM6:00 PM8:00 PM10:00 PMTraffic VolumeHour Start WB HOV WB GP WB Total 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 12:00 AM2:00 AM4:00 AM6:00 AM8:00 AM10:00 AM12:00 PM2:00 PM4:00 PM6:00 PM8:00 PM10:00 PMTraffic VolumeHour Start EB HOV EB GP EB Total Westbound Eastbound 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 12:00 AM2:00 AM4:00 AM6:00 AM8:00 AM10:00 AM12:00 PM2:00 PM4:00 PM6:00 PM8:00 PM10:00 PMTraffic VolumeHour Start WB HOV WB GP WB Total 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 12:00 AM2:00 AM4:00 AM6:00 AM8:00 AM10:00 AM12:00 PM2:00 PM4:00 PM6:00 PM8:00 PM10:00 PMTraffic VolumeHour Start EB HOV EB GP EB Total RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Existing Conditions May 9, 2012 3.19 Figure 3-20 HOV Traffic Volumes on SR-91 by Day of Week, East of SR-71 Figure 3-21 HOV Traffic Volumes on SR-91 by Day of Week, West of I-15 Figure 3-22 HOV Traffic Volumes on SR-91 by Day of Week, East of I-15 Westbound Eastbound 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 12:00 AM2:00 AM4:00 AM6:00 AM8:00 AM10:00 AM12:00 PM2:00 PM4:00 PM6:00 PM8:00 PM10:00 PM12:00 AMTraffic VolumeHour Start Monday-Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 12:00 AM2:00 AM4:00 AM6:00 AM8:00 AM10:00 AM12:00 PM2:00 PM4:00 PM6:00 PM8:00 PM10:00 PM12:00 AMTraffic VolumeHour Start Monday-Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Westbound Eastbound 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 12:00 AM2:00 AM4:00 AM6:00 AM8:00 AM10:00 AM12:00 PM2:00 PM4:00 PM6:00 PM8:00 PM10:00 PM12:00 AMTraffic VolumeHour Start Monday-Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 12:00 AM2:00 AM4:00 AM6:00 AM8:00 AM10:00 AM12:00 PM2:00 PM4:00 PM6:00 PM8:00 PM10:00 PM12:00 AMTraffic VolumeHour Start Monday-Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Westbound Eastbound 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 12:00 AM2:00 AM4:00 AM6:00 AM8:00 AM10:00 AM12:00 PM2:00 PM4:00 PM6:00 PM8:00 PM10:00 PM12:00 AMTraffic VolumeHour Start Monday-Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 12:00 AM2:00 AM4:00 AM6:00 AM8:00 AM10:00 AM12:00 PM2:00 PM4:00 PM6:00 PM8:00 PM10:00 PM12:00 AMTraffic VolumeHour Start Monday-Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Existing Conditions May 9, 2012 3.20 3.1.6 Balanced Flow Network A detailed and consistent set of traffic volumes was needed for model validation and to be used for the basis for post processing model volumes for mainline freeway and for on and off ramps. To provide this consistent set of traffic volumes from the available traffic counts, it was necessary to balance (or reconcile) the SR-91 mainline and ramp counts. This required making minor adjustments to the measured counts at some or all count locations. The two main reasons that the raw count data do not balance are: (1) The count data were collected on different count dates and represent an average over multiple days. There is considerable day to day variation in traffic volumes. (2) No data collection technology is 100% completely error free. The induction loops imbedded in the freeway and ramp lanes and the Wavetronix radar units, sometimes underestimate or overestimate traffic volumes by some minor fraction of the total traffic volume. The PeMS mainline and ramp counts and the Wavetronix counts were the main sources for this balancing algorithm. The main goal was to obtain a set of balanced volumes while minimizing the relative adjustment to the counts. In locations where count data were available from multiple sources, engineering judgment was used to select counts that were the most consistent with the counts obtained from neighboring upstream and downstream locations. The balanced network is shown in Figure 3-23. Of interest is the imbalance in daily eastbound versus westbound traffic volumes. While the western portion of the SR 91 corridor (west of Maple Street) shows even directional balance, the eastern portion of the corridor shows much higher eastbound than westbound volumes. This suggests that vehicles may be using local streets in Corona during the AM peak period to bypass congestion in the vicinity of the SR 91/I-15 interchange, instead accessing the SR 91 corridor via Maple Street or Lincoln Avenue. RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Existing Conditions May 9, 2012 3.21 Figure 3-23 Existing Balanced Network Green River Road SR-71 Auto Center Drive Maple Street Lincoln Avenue OCTA Express Lanes 6th Street 12 3 ,4 5 6 = Vo lume in Mix ing Are a Main Street I-15 McKinley Street Pierce Street 1,234 = Ramp Volumes 5 6 ,7 8 9 = GP La ne Vo lume s Grand Grand 10 ,12 3 =HOV la ne Vo lume s 10 7 ,3 6 1 14 ,4 7 9 9,467SR-91 Riverside County Balanced Volumes 16,914 20,868 12 2 ,5 3 3 10 7 ,3 6 1 14 ,4 7 9 10 ,0 5 5 10 6 ,3 8 2 12 4 ,5 0 9 8,172 Avenue 12 ,0 8 2 10 ,0 5 5 8,963 8,876 19,660 19,53925,354 12 2 ,5 3 3119 ,0 14 7 ,2 0 2 7 7 ,4 12 7 6 ,5 4 4 10 ,9 7 4 9 0 ,4 5 7 12 ,6 2 0 8 9 ,8 7 4 10 1,4 3 1 10 2 ,4 9 4 117 ,8 5 0 13 ,6 6 1 14 ,4 7 9 12 3 ,7 12 15 ,7 19 13 2 ,0 9 1 8,357 12 ,9 4 9 11,5 9 6 117 ,18 5 114 ,2 2 1 10 8 ,19 1 114 ,9 9 9 117 ,17 3 12,546 3,649 16,529 7,087 7,625 13 0 ,10 1 7,820 9,1874,645 10,674 4,7668,15717,38518,1995,7547,614 13 5 ,8 6 7 12 7 ,15 0 12 6 ,9 7 1 12,576 15,14020,51018,370 6,372 10 4 ,6 3 4 9 6 ,3 2 2 13 ,8 3 7 8 ,7 2 3 40,894 16,650 19,955 9,920 21,401 3,950 4,502 11,346 29,763 22,681Avenue33,3749,977 15,311 113 ,6 6 8 12 4 ,13 7 10 ,9 7 4 12 ,6 2 0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Existing Conditions May 9, 2012 3.22 3.1.7 Origin Destination Survey In order to verify the balanced flow n etwork, an origin destination survey was conducted using BluFax detection devices to detect Bluetooth equipment in vehicles (Bluetooth is a wireless transmission standard commonly used between cellular telephones and hands free devices). Since Bluetooth transmissions can be uniquely identified, it was possible to track the movement of vehicles through the corridor with detection devices at strategic locations throughout the corridor. The Bluetooth detectors were located at the same locations as the Wavetronix detectors (See Figure 3-1) As can be seen in Figure 3-24 through Figure 3-26, the BluFax detection devices recorded very similar vehicle movements as are shown in the balanced network. Figure 3-24 Distribution of Traffic on SR-91 at SR-71 Interchange SR-91 EB to SR-71 Interchange SR-91 WB to SR-71 Interchange 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% SR-91 EB to SR-91 NB SR-91 EB Across SR-71Percentage of Traffic Approaching InterchangeBluefax Balanced Network 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% SR-91 WB to SR-71 NB SR-91 WB Across SR-71Percentage of Traffic Approaching InterchangeBluefax Balanced Network RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Existing Conditions May 9, 2012 3.23 Figure 3-25 Distribution of Traffic on SR-91 at I-15 Interchange Figure 3-26 Distribution of Traffic Entering SR-91 SR-91 EB to I-15 Interchange SR-91 WB to I-15 Interchange 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% SR-91 EB to I-15 NB SR-91 EB Across I-15 SR-91 EB to I-15 SBPercentage of Traffic Approaching InterchangeBluefax Balanced Network 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% SR-91 WB to I-15 SB SR-91 WB Across I-15 SR-91 WB to I-15 NBPercentage of Traffic Approaching InterchangeBluefax Balanced Network SR-71 SB to SR-91 To SR-91 Westbound, West of I-15 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% SR-71 SB to SR-91 EB SR-71 SB to SR-91 WBPercentage of Traffic on SR-91 SBBluefax Balanced Network 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% I-15 NB to SR-91 WB SR-91 WB Across I-15 I-15 SB to SR-91 WBPercentage of TRaffic on SR-91 WB, W of I-15Bluefax Balanced Network RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Existing Conditions May 9, 2012 3.24 3.2 VEHICLE SPEEDS Vehicle speeds in the study area were obtained using three methods. First, at the 4 Wavetronix locations on SR-91 and the 3 locations on intersecting routes, speeds were collected at fifteen minute increments throughout the course of a week. Second, a set of detection devices, called “BluFax,” were installed to monitor Bluetooth transmissions in the area. Third, speed data were available from the Caltrans PeMS system. 3.2.1 Wavetronix Speed Data The Wavetronix radar counts provided spot speed data for 15-minute increments. These data correspond to the volume data also recorded by the Wavetronix sensors. As shown in Figure 3-27 and Figure 3-28 during the average weekday, speeds on SR-91 deteriorated in the morning in the westbound direction and in the afternoon in the eastbound direction. In the morning, the most severe drop in speeds was at the Wavetronix location to the west of I-15, where speeds fell below 20 mph from 6AM to 9AM. Congestion at this location was recorded for the majority of the day, with average speeds falling below 60 mph in the 4AM hour and remaining below 60 mph until the 6PM hour. At the other westbound locations, congestion was mainly limited to the morning peak period. At the count location west of SR-71, speeds fell below 35 mph in the 6AM and 7AM hours. East of SR-71 speeds were reduced in the morning time periods, however, severe congestion was not observed. In the eastbound direction on SR-91, on an average weekday, speeds fell below 40 mph between 2PM and 7PM at the location to the east of SR-71. Slow speeds were also recorded at the location between SR-241 and SR-71 in the eastbound direction. Further east, a drop in speeds was recorded in the afternoon; however the duration of the congestion was less severe On Friday, speeds recorded at the Wavetronix stations showed slightly less westbound congestion in the morning time periods. In the eastbound direction, congestion was generally more severe on the Friday when the Wavetronix counts were conducted. Eastbound on Friday, speeds dropped earlier in the day, fell lower and remained slow later in the evening than on the weekdays where the counts were conducted (see Figure 3-29 and Figure 3-30). On Saturday, westbound speeds were generally fast, with some con gestion recorded between I-15 and SR-71 in the afternoon hours. Eastbound on Saturday, speeds followed a similar pattern as during an average weekday afternoon, with congestion mainly concentrated between 2 PM and 7PM. Minimal congestion was recorded on Sunday, with a small drop in westbound speeds at the count location just west of I -15 (see Figure 3-31 through Figure 3-34). RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Existing Conditions May 9, 2012 3.25 Figure 3-27 Weekday General Purpose Lane Speed and Volume (Westbound) Figure 3-28 Weekday General Purpose Lane Speed and Volume (Eastbound) 3. SR-91 Westbound West of I-15 4. SR-91 Westbound East of I-15 1. SR-91 Westbound Between SR-241 and SR-71 2. SR-91 Westbound East of SR-71 0 1,500 3,000 4,500 6,000 7,500 9,000 10,500 12,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM General Purpose Lane Traffic VolumeGeneral Purpose Lane Average SpeedGeneral Purpose Speed General Purpose Traffic 0 1,500 3,000 4,500 6,000 7,500 9,000 10,500 12,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM General Purpose Lane Traffic VolumeGeneral Purpose Lane Average SpeedGeneral Purpose Speed General Purpose Traffic 0 1,500 3,000 4,500 6,000 7,500 9,000 10,500 12,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM General Purpose Lane Traffic VolumeGeneral Purpose Lane Average SpeedGeneral Purpose Speed General Purpose Traffic 0 1,500 3,000 4,500 6,000 7,500 9,000 10,500 12,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM General Purpose Lane Traffic VolumeGeneral Purpose Lane Average SpeedGeneral Purpose Speed General Purpose Traffic 1. SR-91 Eastbound Between SR-241 and SR-71 2. SR-91 Eastbound East of SR-71 3. SR-91 Eastbound West of I-15 4. SR-91 Eastbound East of I-15 0 1,500 3,000 4,500 6,000 7,500 9,000 10,500 12,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM General Purpose Lane Traffic VolumeGeneral Purpose Lane Average SpeedGeneral Purpose Speed General Purpose Traffic 0 1,500 3,000 4,500 6,000 7,500 9,000 10,500 12,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM General Purpose Lane Traffic VolumeGeneral Purpose Lane Average SpeedGeneral Purpose Speed General Purpose Traffic 0 1,500 3,000 4,500 6,000 7,500 9,000 10,500 12,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM General Purpose Lane Traffic VolumeGeneral Purpose Lane Average SpeedGeneral Purpose Speed General Purpose Traffic 0 1,500 3,000 4,500 6,000 7,500 9,000 10,500 12,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM General Purpose Lane Traffic VolumeGeneral Purpose Lane Average SpeedGeneral Purpose Speed General Purpose Traffic RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Existing Conditions May 9, 2012 3.26 Figure 3-29 Friday General Purpose Lane Speed and Volume (Westbound) Figure 3-30 Friday General Purpose Lane Speed and Volume (Eastbound) 3. SR-91 Westbound West of I-15 4. SR-91 Westbound East of I-15 1. SR-91 Westbound Between SR-241 and SR-71 2. SR-91 Westbound East of SR-71 0 1,500 3,000 4,500 6,000 7,500 9,000 10,500 12,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM General Purpose Lane Traffic VolumeGeneral Purpose Lane Average SpeedGeneral Purpose Speed General Purpose Traffic 0 1,500 3,000 4,500 6,000 7,500 9,000 10,500 12,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM General Purpose Lane Traffic VolumeGeneral Purpose Lane Average SpeedGeneral Purpose Speed General Purpose Traffic 0 1,500 3,000 4,500 6,000 7,500 9,000 10,500 12,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM General Purpose Lane Traffic VolumeGeneral Purpose Lane Average SpeedGeneral Purpose Speed General Purpose Traffic 0 1,500 3,000 4,500 6,000 7,500 9,000 10,500 12,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM General Purpose Lane Traffic VolumeGeneral Purpose Lane Average SpeedGeneral Purpose Speed General Purpose Traffic 1. SR-91 Eastbound Between SR-241 and SR-71 2. SR-91 Eastbound East of SR-71 3. SR-91 Eastbound West of I-15 4. SR-91 Eastbound East of I-15 0 1,500 3,000 4,500 6,000 7,500 9,000 10,500 12,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM General Purpose Lane Traffic VolumeGeneral Purpose Lane Average SpeedGeneral Purpose Speed General Purpose Traffic 0 1,500 3,000 4,500 6,000 7,500 9,000 10,500 12,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM General Purpose Lane Traffic VolumeGeneral Purpose Lane Average SpeedGeneral Purpose Speed General Purpose Traffic 0 1,500 3,000 4,500 6,000 7,500 9,000 10,500 12,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM General Purpose Lane Traffic VolumeGeneral Purpose Lane Average SpeedGeneral Purpose Speed General Purpose Traffic 0 1,500 3,000 4,500 6,000 7,500 9,000 10,500 12,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM General Purpose Lane Traffic VolumeGeneral Purpose Lane Average SpeedGeneral Purpose Speed General Purpose Traffic RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Existing Conditions May 9, 2012 3.27 Figure 3-31 Saturday General Purpose Lane Speed and Volume (Westbound) Figure 3-32 Saturday General Purpose Lane Speed and Volume (Eastbound) 3. SR-91 Westbound West of I-15 4. SR-91 Westbound East of I-15 1. SR-91 Westbound Between SR-241 and SR-71 2. SR-91 Westbound East of SR-71 0 1,500 3,000 4,500 6,000 7,500 9,000 10,500 12,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM General Purpose Lane Traffic VolumeGeneral Purpose Lane Average SpeedGeneral Purpose Speed General Purpose Traffic 0 1,500 3,000 4,500 6,000 7,500 9,000 10,500 12,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM General Purpose Lane Traffic VolumeGeneral Purpose Lane Average SpeedGeneral Purpose Speed General Purpose Traffic 0 1,500 3,000 4,500 6,000 7,500 9,000 10,500 12,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM General Purpose Lane Traffic VolumeGeneral Purpose Lane Average SpeedGeneral Purpose Speed General Purpose Traffic 0 1,500 3,000 4,500 6,000 7,500 9,000 10,500 12,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM General Purpose Lane Traffic VolumeGeneral Purpose Lane Average SpeedGeneral Purpose Speed General Purpose Traffic 1. SR-91 Eastbound Between SR-241 and SR-71 2. SR-91 Eastbound East of SR-71 3. SR-91 Eastbound West of I-15 4. SR-91 Eastbound East of I-15 0 1,500 3,000 4,500 6,000 7,500 9,000 10,500 12,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM General Purpose Lane Traffic VolumeGeneral Purpose Lane Average SpeedGeneral Purpose Speed General Purpose Traffic 0 1,500 3,000 4,500 6,000 7,500 9,000 10,500 12,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM General Purpose Lane Traffic VolumeGeneral Purpose Lane Average SpeedGeneral Purpose Speed General Purpose Traffic 0 1,500 3,000 4,500 6,000 7,500 9,000 10,500 12,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM General Purpose Lane Traffic VolumeGeneral Purpose Lane Average SpeedGeneral Purpose Speed General Purpose Traffic 0 1,500 3,000 4,500 6,000 7,500 9,000 10,500 12,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM General Purpose Lane Traffic VolumeGeneral Purpose Lane Average SpeedGeneral Purpose Speed General Purpose Traffic RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Existing Conditions May 9, 2012 3.28 Figure 3-33 Sunday General Purpose Lane Speed and Volume (Westbound) Figure 3-34 Sunday General Purpose Lane Speed and Volume (Westbound) 3. SR-91 Westbound West of I-15 4. SR-91 Westbound East of I-15 1. SR-91 Westbound Between SR-241 and SR-71 2. SR-91 Westbound East of SR-71 0 1,500 3,000 4,500 6,000 7,500 9,000 10,500 12,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM General Purpose Lane Traffic VolumeGeneral Purpose Lane Average SpeedGeneral Purpose Speed General Purpose Traffic 0 1,500 3,000 4,500 6,000 7,500 9,000 10,500 12,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM General Purpose Lane Traffic VolumeGeneral Purpose Lane Average SpeedGeneral Purpose Speed General Purpose Traffic 0 1,500 3,000 4,500 6,000 7,500 9,000 10,500 12,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM General Purpose Lane Traffic VolumeGeneral Purpose Lane Average SpeedGeneral Purpose Speed General Purpose Traffic 0 1,500 3,000 4,500 6,000 7,500 9,000 10,500 12,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM General Purpose Lane Traffic VolumeGeneral Purpose Lane Average SpeedGeneral Purpose Speed General Purpose Traffic 1. SR-91 Eastbound Between SR-241 and SR-71 2. SR-91 Eastbound East of SR-71 3. SR-91 Eastbound West of I-15 4. SR-91 Eastbound East of I-15 0 1,500 3,000 4,500 6,000 7,500 9,000 10,500 12,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM General Purpose Lane Traffic VolumeGeneral Purpose Lane Average SpeedGeneral Purpose Speed General Purpose Traffic 0 1,500 3,000 4,500 6,000 7,500 9,000 10,500 12,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM General Purpose Lane Traffic VolumeGeneral Purpose Lane Average SpeedGeneral Purpose Speed General Purpose Traffic 0 1,500 3,000 4,500 6,000 7,500 9,000 10,500 12,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM General Purpose Lane Traffic VolumeGeneral Purpose Lane Average SpeedGeneral Purpose Speed General Purpose Traffic 0 1,500 3,000 4,500 6,000 7,500 9,000 10,500 12,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM General Purpose Lane Traffic VolumeGeneral Purpose Lane Average SpeedGeneral Purpose Speed General Purpose Traffic RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Existing Conditions May 9, 2012 3.29 3.2.2 BluFax Speeds In order to supplement the spot speeds recorded by the Wavetronix detection devices, additional speed data were collected using detection devices called “BluFax” to detect Bluetooth equipment in vehicles (Bluetooth is a wireless transmission standard commonly used between cellular telephones and hands free devices). Since Bluetooth transmissions can be uniquely identified, it was possible to track the movement of vehicles through the corridor with detection devices at strategic locations throughout the corridor. BluFax detections provide the average travel time for vehicles between the detection stations, and provide a fuller picture of the travel speeds than the spot speeds recorded by the Wavetronix devices. On the weekday mornings, the BluFax speeds showed severe congestion through the interchange between I-15 and SR-91. On SR-91 Westbound, speeds fell below 20 mph from the 5 AM hour to the 9 AM hour. Similarly slow speeds were recorded from I-15 southbound to SR- 91 westbound, and the most severe congestion in the interchange was recorded on the ramp from I-15 northbound to SR-91 westbound. Between I-15 and the interchange with SR-71, speeds also became very congested in the morning peak period. Speeds were below 20 mph for three hours, from 6AM to 9AM. Moving to the western end of the study area, speeds became faster, with the average speed across the interchange with SR -91 staying above 25 mph for the entire day (see Table 3-8 and Figure 3-35). This level of westbound congestion is different than the SR 91 corridor in Orange County, where very little congestion occurs, even during the AM peak period. This suggests that the Riverside County 91 Express Lanes may offer greater time savings and therefore will generate increased traffic and revenue from the westbound Express Lanes compared to the Orange County 91 Express Lanes, where the eastbound traffic and revenue makes up the majority of the daily traffic and revenue. In the afternoon on weekdays, congestion was not recorded to be as severe as during the morning peak period; however, slow speeds were observed. The most severe congestion was observed at the SR-71 interchange in the, where vehicles traveling through the interchange on SR-91 averaged below 40 mph from 2PM to 8PM. East of this interchange, congestion was less severe, with speeds under 40 mph between 3PM and 7PM. At I-15, the congestion begins to dissipate, and slow speeds under 40 mph were recorded for three hours of the day, from 4PM to 7PM (see Table 3-9 and Figure 3-36). While congestion exists in the eastbound direction, speeds in Riverside County are higher than those in Orange County. As noted above, this implies that the westbound Riverside County 91 Express Lanes may be as attractive as the eastbound Express Lanes, leading to more balan ced directional traffic volumes compared to the existing 91 Express Lanes in Orange County where eastbound volumes are much higher. On Friday, as shown in Table 3-10, speeds recorded showed a similar pattern as the speeds recorded by the Wavetronix stations. Westbound speeds were slightly less congested in the morning, and similar throughout the remainder of the day. Eastbound speeds were slower in the afternoon, with congestion starting earlier and lasting later into the evening. RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Existing Conditions May 9, 2012 3.30 On weekends, as shown in Table 3-11 and Table 3-12, speeds recorded by the BluFax detection devices also showed a similar pattern as the speeds recorded by the Wavetronix stations. Westbound speeds were recorded with minimal congestion on Saturday and Sunday. Eastbound Saturday speeds were similar to eastbound weekday speeds, with congestion starting somewhat earlier. On Sunday eastbound speeds did not show congestion. Table 3-8 Average Weekday Speeds Recorded by BluFax (Westbound) Figure 3-35 Average Westbound Weekday Speeds at 7AM I-15 SB I-15 NB SR-91 WB SR-71 SB to SR-91 WB to SR-71 NB to SR-91 WB 12:00 AM 1:00 AM 61.1 61.3 67.6 71.5 70.5 63.7 61.1 1:00 AM 2:00 AM 58.8 63.5 66.0 70.3 70.4 64.5 53.7 2:00 AM 3:00 AM 57.2 61.5 66.0 69.7 69.9 65.4 56.4 3:00 AM 4:00 AM 58.0 62.1 66.7 70.0 69.9 62.1 59.1 4:00 AM 5:00 AM 56.9 42.0 66.0 69.3 71.2 62.8 61.7 5:00 AM 6:00 AM 20.1 10.0 16.9 29.5 48.1 53.2 48.4 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8.2 6.0 7.9 13.9 30.9 42.5 33.2 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 7.4 6.1 10.0 13.5 29.4 43.6 31.3 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 8.7 6.4 10.0 17.7 44.8 49.3 40.6 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 17.3 11.3 11.4 32.4 60.7 56.8 56.7 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 48.5 19.6 40.3 54.4 67.2 59.6 60.7 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 56.6 31.8 65.2 65.5 70.2 60.6 62.3 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 58.3 46.3 66.5 65.8 70.9 60.7 62.9 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 56.7 51.1 64.7 66.0 70.8 61.3 61.9 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 59.2 53.0 62.5 63.9 70.2 60.7 61.8 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 59.2 50.8 66.7 69.2 70.1 60.0 59.9 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 58.7 48.4 66.4 67.8 70.2 60.0 59.0 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 58.1 49.5 65.5 68.4 68.8 59.0 59.5 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 58.0 54.6 65.5 68.6 69.8 60.0 60.5 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 59.2 57.1 65.7 70.5 71.4 61.6 62.9 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 60.8 58.9 66.1 71.5 71.8 64.2 62.1 9:00 PM 10:00 PM 60.2 59.9 67.2 72.0 71.7 62.9 62.9 10:00 PM 11:00 PM 60.0 58.2 67.5 72.7 72.5 64.2 61.7 11:00 PM 12:00 AM 62.2 62.8 67.4 72.2 65.1 63.1 60.9 I-15 Interchange to SR-91 WB I-15 Int. to SR-71 Int. SR-71 Interchange SR-91 WB Westbound Speeds 13.5 mph 6.1 mph 10.0 mph 7.4 mph31.3 mph 43.6 mph 29.4 mph 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 12:00 AM1:00 AM2:00 AM3:00 AM4:00 AM5:00 AM6:00 AM7:00 AM8:00 AM9:00 AM10:00 AM11:00 AM12:00 PM1:00 PM2:00 PM3:00 PM4:00 PM5:00 PM6:00 PM7:00 PM8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PMSR-91 WB Across I-15 I-15 NB to SR-91 WB I-15 SB to SR-91 WB 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 12:00 AM1:00 AM2:00 AM3:00 AM4:00 AM5:00 AM6:00 AM7:00 AM8:00 AM9:00 AM10:00 AM11:00 AM12:00 PM1:00 PM2:00 PM3:00 PM4:00 PM5:00 PM6:00 PM7:00 PM8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PMSR-91 WB From I-15 to SR-71 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 12:00 AM1:00 AM2:00 AM3:00 AM4:00 AM5:00 AM6:00 AM7:00 AM8:00 AM9:00 AM10:00 AM11:00 AM12:00 PM1:00 PM2:00 PM3:00 PM4:00 PM5:00 PM6:00 PM7:00 PM8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PMSR-91 WB Across SR-71 SR-91 WB to SR-71 NB SR-71 SB to SR-91 WB RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Existing Conditions May 9, 2012 3.31 Table 3-9 Average Weekday Speeds Recorded by BluFax (Eastbound) Figure 3-36 Average Eastbound Weekday Speeds at 5PM SR-91 EB SR-71 SB SR-91 EB to SR-71 NB to SR-91 EB to I-15 SB to I-15 EB 12:00 AM 1:00 AM 63.0 63.6 64.9 67.0 72.0 64.2 65.8 1:00 AM 2:00 AM 60.7 61.6 67.0 68.4 70.3 64.6 66.8 2:00 AM 3:00 AM 61.4 59.3 67.5 66.1 70.2 63.4 64.2 3:00 AM 4:00 AM 61.4 63.2 64.5 65.6 70.7 62.9 63.3 4:00 AM 5:00 AM 59.7 59.1 66.6 65.5 70.9 61.8 64.9 5:00 AM 6:00 AM 63.4 60.5 68.1 67.6 73.2 60.5 65.2 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 59.0 55.1 68.0 67.9 73.3 59.7 59.9 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 60.1 51.8 68.2 65.6 71.2 55.3 63.6 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 59.1 50.4 64.6 66.4 73.2 57.5 57.0 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 59.2 53.3 67.6 66.8 73.6 56.6 59.0 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 58.7 58.1 67.2 65.1 72.0 55.7 58.7 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 59.5 56.5 66.7 64.4 70.1 54.5 56.9 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 58.0 57.3 66.1 63.5 70.1 54.7 57.0 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 58.1 46.4 61.9 60.5 69.7 54.8 57.8 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 40.2 24.1 37.4 43.5 66.0 49.6 53.3 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 30.9 12.2 26.4 32.0 42.2 50.6 54.7 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 28.5 10.1 25.5 27.5 25.6 49.1 51.8 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 28.3 11.3 29.1 30.1 21.7 46.3 50.4 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 33.0 12.4 33.5 34.7 29.0 46.7 51.6 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 37.6 13.9 35.6 41.8 54.6 51.8 55.3 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 53.0 30.4 56.8 56.0 69.2 54.8 58.7 9:00 PM 10:00 PM 60.7 59.9 67.0 65.8 71.8 61.0 62.8 10:00 PM 11:00 PM 61.0 60.8 68.3 67.2 72.4 63.5 63.6 11:00 PM 12:00 AM 60.5 61.0 67.2 68.0 72.0 63.7 63.2 Eastbound Speeds SR-71 Interchange SR-71 Int. to I-15 Int. I-15 Interchange to SR-91 EB SR-91 EB 30.1 mph 46.3 mph 50.4 mph28.3 mph 11.3 mph 29.1 mph 21.7 mph 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 12:00 AM1:00 AM2:00 AM3:00 AM4:00 AM5:00 AM6:00 AM7:00 AM8:00 AM9:00 AM10:00 AM11:00 AM12:00 PM1:00 PM2:00 PM3:00 PM4:00 PM5:00 PM6:00 PM7:00 PM8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PMSR-91 EB Across SR-71 SR-71 SB to SR-91 EB SR-91 EB to SR-71 NB 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 12:00 AM1:00 AM2:00 AM3:00 AM4:00 AM5:00 AM6:00 AM7:00 AM8:00 AM9:00 AM10:00 AM11:00 AM12:00 PM1:00 PM2:00 PM3:00 PM4:00 PM5:00 PM6:00 PM7:00 PM8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PMSR 91 EB Between SR-71 and I-15 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 12:00 AM1:00 AM2:00 AM3:00 AM4:00 AM5:00 AM6:00 AM7:00 AM8:00 AM9:00 AM10:00 AM11:00 AM12:00 PM1:00 PM2:00 PM3:00 PM4:00 PM5:00 PM6:00 PM7:00 PM8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PMSR-91 EB Across I-15 SR-91 EB to I-15 NB SR-91 EB to I-15 SB RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Existing Conditions May 9, 2012 3.32 Table 3-10 Average Friday Speeds Recorded by BluFax Table 3-11 Average Saturday Speeds Recorded by BluFax Table 3-12 Average Sunday Speeds Recorded by BluFax I-15 SB I-15 NB SR-91 WB SR-71 SB SR-91 EB SR-71 SB SR-91 EB to SR-91 WB to SR-71 NB to SR-91 WB to SR-71 NB to SR-91 EB to I-15 SB to I-15 EB 12:00 AM 1:00 AM 62.1 63.1 66.2 71.1 70.7 60.6 58.2 46.8 55.7 54.3 62.7 74.3 63.5 63.0 1:00 AM 2:00 AM 59.6 62.3 64.8 70.9 68.8 61.3 58.2 60.6 62.8 70.7 70.4 73.1 67.0 65.0 2:00 AM 3:00 AM 58.3 61.1 68.1 71.6 70.3 69.5 55.8 70.0 61.4 69.0 65.4 70.0 60.5 66.5 3:00 AM 4:00 AM 58.2 59.5 68.1 70.9 70.3 62.9 65.4 58.9 62.7 66.8 67.5 72.5 67.4 67.2 4:00 AM 5:00 AM 58.9 44.8 67.2 70.2 71.5 62.4 64.2 62.7 62.7 66.7 65.2 69.6 64.0 65.3 5:00 AM 6:00 AM 22.5 11.4 23.1 32.4 50.7 55.2 50.7 65.3 59.7 68.6 68.4 73.7 62.9 63.9 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 14.8 10.3 25.6 16.5 36.2 45.0 36.0 58.6 55.0 68.1 66.8 72.6 61.1 63.1 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 36.9 27.9 50.4 29.5 55.6 50.3 51.4 59.6 55.6 68.8 66.2 73.0 60.0 63.0 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 57.1 36.9 65.0 55.0 41.3 54.9 34.2 59.4 58.7 67.5 65.9 44.1 59.1 61.7 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 28.2 13.9 42.0 18.4 25.0 33.1 22.9 58.3 55.9 67.2 65.4 28.6 58.4 60.5 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 37.2 13.8 45.7 27.2 54.4 38.5 61.5 56.9 58.1 66.8 62.7 25.2 52.5 54.5 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 58.0 32.9 66.0 67.1 69.1 59.3 62.1 57.9 57.9 66.5 36.3 17.9 47.3 50.4 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 59.2 44.8 65.9 68.8 69.5 59.7 61.2 56.9 21.8 53.9 24.7 14.0 47.6 49.0 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 57.7 34.2 64.9 68.5 69.8 59.5 56.7 28.8 12.4 25.0 28.9 56.7 48.9 53.5 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 57.1 29.4 65.3 67.3 68.4 59.1 59.3 29.6 13.6 30.1 31.9 63.6 47.2 52.6 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 56.3 28.9 65.3 67.7 68.9 57.0 59.2 31.3 10.7 27.9 29.5 39.3 20.5 50.7 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 56.6 21.5 64.7 65.8 67.7 59.6 58.1 27.8 9.2 21.7 16.9 55.1 7.1 26.1 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 55.3 25.4 63.8 66.7 42.9 55.9 38.9 20.4 8.4 16.2 16.5 60.4 8.6 31.7 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 55.3 45.5 64.5 68.4 68.8 58.6 56.6 26.3 8.2 20.9 20.1 59.4 11.3 32.2 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 57.2 54.7 67.2 71.0 71.3 62.1 59.9 35.3 17.6 34.1 35.1 64.0 42.3 52.5 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 60.2 58.5 67.7 71.8 71.3 62.9 60.4 48.1 14.9 41.5 44.6 65.7 50.9 54.3 9:00 PM 10:00 PM 59.8 57.8 66.8 72.4 71.7 60.9 62.1 55.5 56.2 51.2 46.3 67.1 47.1 51.8 10:00 PM 11:00 PM 60.4 58.6 67.6 72.9 72.0 63.2 61.7 60.4 59.5 67.4 66.0 72.4 61.5 63.7 11:00 PM 12:00 AM 60.2 61.1 68.4 73.8 72.6 64.6 65.9 60.8 57.7 67.9 66.8 72.0 63.0 64.7 to SR-91 WB to SR-91 EB Westbound Speeds Eastbound Speeds I-15 Interchange I-15 Int. to SR-71 Int. SR-71 Interchange SR-71 Interchange SR-71 Int. to I-15 Int. I-15 Interchange SR-91 WB SR-91 EB I-15 SB I-15 NB SR-91 WB SR-71 SB SR-91 EB SR-71 SB SR-91 EB to SR-91 WB to SR-71 NB to SR-91 WB to SR-71 NB to SR-91 EB to I-15 SB to I-15 EB 12:00 AM 1:00 AM 61.9 58.8 67.1 74.2 72.2 58.9 63.1 60.9 62.5 68.4 69.0 73.1 62.6 66.6 1:00 AM 2:00 AM 60.2 62.6 68.5 75.0 73.0 63.0 59.1 58.4 62.5 70.6 70.0 71.1 66.3 67.5 2:00 AM 3:00 AM 57.6 59.8 65.8 72.0 71.9 67.5 58.0 59.0 64.3 69.8 70.0 72.0 60.7 68.3 3:00 AM 4:00 AM 60.0 59.8 68.0 71.3 71.6 63.7 59.3 60.4 57.6 68.3 68.9 74.0 65.1 62.8 4:00 AM 5:00 AM 60.3 60.7 68.8 73.7 71.1 65.4 61.6 62.3 52.0 67.6 66.9 72.9 63.5 63.8 5:00 AM 6:00 AM 56.5 60.5 64.6 71.9 71.4 62.6 61.3 63.2 60.3 68.7 67.9 74.2 64.2 65.8 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 58.1 57.8 66.6 70.7 70.9 62.5 62.6 61.0 61.4 69.4 68.4 74.4 64.0 64.5 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 62.3 59.3 67.7 72.3 72.6 63.9 64.3 61.8 59.9 70.7 69.0 73.9 64.7 65.6 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 58.4 43.3 66.3 70.5 71.5 61.7 64.5 61.0 61.0 69.7 66.8 73.4 59.1 63.1 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 58.6 22.3 66.1 71.3 71.7 62.6 65.0 59.4 59.4 67.8 61.0 72.3 53.6 56.1 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 58.8 22.0 66.4 71.6 71.2 61.9 62.8 61.0 59.6 68.7 55.4 70.0 45.3 49.9 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 58.8 21.4 66.3 69.7 70.4 57.6 63.1 55.9 59.1 67.5 35.8 67.8 43.1 46.9 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 58.2 21.6 65.8 69.9 70.4 53.6 64.0 56.3 38.9 62.0 30.2 67.4 47.0 51.3 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 57.9 22.9 66.3 70.4 69.0 60.3 56.5 54.7 10.2 45.7 31.4 67.3 48.0 52.8 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 58.8 20.8 65.7 67.4 58.0 57.4 53.0 34.0 8.8 28.3 32.0 63.4 48.3 52.7 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 58.3 20.7 66.2 68.5 62.4 60.2 52.2 28.6 8.6 23.7 31.0 68.1 50.3 56.1 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 57.2 17.7 63.5 57.9 65.1 59.8 54.9 28.5 7.9 23.4 31.0 68.7 50.9 57.1 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 41.2 13.8 48.5 43.8 58.3 57.1 53.9 50.6 13.8 46.8 37.9 67.5 50.1 54.2 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 54.0 19.3 63.4 51.3 56.6 52.1 56.7 42.7 10.5 36.9 37.3 65.2 48.6 53.0 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 53.8 37.8 61.6 61.9 62.6 59.1 59.2 57.7 21.3 61.1 40.6 66.4 48.2 52.5 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 59.0 56.2 66.9 71.3 70.9 62.6 63.6 60.4 59.8 68.0 66.4 71.6 59.8 62.3 9:00 PM 10:00 PM 59.3 55.8 67.1 71.9 71.0 62.1 62.5 59.0 57.1 67.5 65.1 70.8 60.2 61.6 10:00 PM 11:00 PM 60.3 54.8 67.4 71.6 70.6 62.6 63.0 60.4 59.7 66.3 64.6 70.2 61.0 61.9 11:00 PM 12:00 AM 59.2 56.9 67.2 72.7 71.9 62.2 62.2 60.0 61.1 68.8 67.2 71.6 63.5 62.1 to SR-91 WB to SR-91 EB Westbound Speeds Eastbound Speeds I-15 Interchange I-15 Int. to SR-71 Int. SR-71 Interchange SR-71 Interchange SR-71 Int. to I-15 Int. I-15 Interchange SR-91 WB SR-91 EB I-15 SB I-15 NB SR-91 WB SR-71 SB SR-91 EB SR-71 SB SR-91 EB to SR-91 WB to SR-71 NB to SR-91 WB to SR-71 NB to SR-91 EB to I-15 SB to I-15 EB 12:00 AM 1:00 AM 59.6 58.8 67.7 74.3 72.4 65.8 63.8 60.3 62.5 69.9 69.0 74.0 65.7 67.6 1:00 AM 2:00 AM 60.2 58.5 69.4 74.7 73.4 63.9 62.6 62.4 62.5 71.3 70.8 76.4 66.2 66.2 2:00 AM 3:00 AM 59.8 61.8 70.1 76.1 75.2 65.5 65.5 65.2 64.3 69.9 70.0 74.7 68.4 63.8 3:00 AM 4:00 AM 56.6 60.4 68.7 73.2 72.4 57.6 58.9 60.7 57.6 71.5 69.0 75.8 67.7 67.4 4:00 AM 5:00 AM 57.2 60.4 68.6 73.4 71.4 62.5 63.7 62.9 52.0 71.2 69.0 75.5 63.0 64.9 5:00 AM 6:00 AM 62.0 59.7 69.5 75.1 73.9 66.8 58.2 60.7 62.3 69.3 67.4 74.7 67.9 68.7 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 61.9 61.0 67.5 74.3 73.4 66.4 65.2 65.8 62.9 70.8 71.1 72.2 67.9 68.0 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 63.7 63.5 69.5 76.3 74.7 67.0 65.3 63.8 65.8 72.9 71.8 76.3 71.5 70.0 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 63.2 62.1 70.4 77.4 75.4 65.7 66.0 63.0 64.9 72.5 71.8 76.9 69.0 71.2 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 62.5 61.1 69.1 75.0 73.8 61.3 65.8 62.7 62.2 72.0 70.6 76.9 66.8 66.6 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 61.3 59.3 67.3 72.7 71.8 63.5 66.0 61.4 63.9 70.8 68.8 75.6 64.6 66.0 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 60.8 56.8 67.5 72.2 68.8 62.6 64.2 62.3 62.1 71.5 68.5 73.8 62.4 64.0 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 59.0 55.5 67.8 71.3 70.1 63.6 62.2 60.9 61.8 70.3 67.1 73.4 61.7 64.0 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 60.7 55.8 67.4 71.9 69.8 62.7 63.7 62.1 62.0 70.8 66.4 72.4 60.7 62.2 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 59.4 55.7 67.4 71.3 70.7 62.1 62.8 61.9 61.5 70.5 67.4 72.9 60.1 63.0 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 58.1 25.0 66.8 71.0 70.0 64.0 63.6 63.4 60.8 70.9 67.8 73.9 62.0 64.5 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 56.5 19.3 65.9 68.2 70.0 63.4 61.1 62.9 60.8 70.3 67.3 72.8 62.7 64.7 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 48.6 15.0 57.1 56.3 65.7 60.4 61.9 61.9 61.3 69.9 67.8 72.9 61.2 64.1 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 48.9 13.2 58.2 54.2 55.9 56.8 59.6 59.0 56.1 67.3 63.2 69.5 56.6 60.1 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 51.9 18.3 63.1 61.5 59.0 58.7 61.7 59.2 57.7 67.2 64.4 70.5 59.3 62.3 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 58.2 28.4 66.8 70.6 69.1 61.1 63.7 60.3 59.3 69.1 66.3 71.0 62.5 62.6 9:00 PM 10:00 PM 58.6 54.5 67.1 71.8 70.8 61.6 62.4 60.9 60.4 68.1 66.2 72.2 62.2 63.5 10:00 PM 11:00 PM 59.2 58.3 68.4 74.0 71.2 62.7 65.2 60.9 58.7 69.7 67.7 72.8 63.8 65.4 11:00 PM 12:00 AM 60.4 57.5 65.6 65.1 72.7 64.3 64.4 63.9 62.3 71.1 70.1 74.2 66.9 66.8 to SR-91 WB to SR-91 EB Westbound Speeds Eastbound Speeds I-15 Interchange I-15 Int. to SR-71 Int. SR-71 Interchange SR-71 Interchange SR-71 Int. to I-15 Int. I-15 Interchange SR-91 WB SR-91 EB RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Existing Conditions May 9, 2012 3.33 By adding together the total travel time recorded by BluFax from west of SR-71 to east of I-15, the average speeds through the entire corridor could be found. Th ese are shown in Figure 3-37. Figure 3-37 Average Speeds Between West of SR-71 and East of I-15 3.2.3 PeMS Speeds Speed data were also available from the PeMS program. Detectors were located approximately every half mile through the highway corridor. The average weekday speeds from the PeMS program for November 8 – 11, 2010 are plotted in Table 3-13 and Table 3-14. Each line in the tables represents a detector station, and each column represents a 15-minute increment. The height of each line in the tables is proportional to the distance monitored by each detector. As can be seen in the tables, congestion begins early in the morning, especially east of Maple Street. The eastbound congestion does not become clear until about 10 AM. In the afternoon, eastbound congestion begins to build starting at 2PM, and lasts until about 7:30. Congestion in the afternoon is concentrated between the SR-71 interchange and Lincoln Avenue, and between I-15 and McKinley Street. Eastbound Westbound 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 12:00 AM2:00 AM4:00 AM6:00 AM8:00 AM10:00 AM12:00 PM2:00 PM4:00 PM6:00 PM8:00 PM10:00 PM12:00 AMTraffic VolumeHour Start Monday-Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 12:00 AM2:00 AM4:00 AM6:00 AM8:00 AM10:00 AM12:00 PM2:00 PM4:00 PM6:00 PM8:00 PM10:00 PM12:00 AMTraffic VolumeHour Start Monday-Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Existing Conditions May 9, 2012 3.34 Table 3-13 Eastbound Weekday Speeds Recorded by PeMS on SR-91 (5AM – 10PM) Location 5:00 AM5:15 AM5:30 AM5:45 AM6:00 AM6:15 AM6:30 AM6:45 AM7:00 AM7:15 AM7:30 AM7:45 AM8:00 AM8:15 AM8:30 AM8:45 AM9:00 AM9:15 AM9:30 AM9:45 AM10:00 AM10:15 AM10:30 AM10:45 AM11:00 AM11:15 AM11:30 AM11:45 AM12:00 PM12:15 PM12:30 PM12:45 PM1:00 PM1:15 PM1:30 PM1:45 PM2:00 PM2:15 PM2:30 PM2:45 PM3:00 PM3:15 PM3:30 PM3:45 PM4:00 PM4:15 PM4:30 PM4:45 PM5:00 PM5:15 PM5:30 PM5:45 PM6:00 PM6:15 PM6:30 PM6:45 PM7:00 PM7:15 PM7:30 PM7:45 PM8:00 PM8:15 PM8:30 PM8:45 PM9:00 PM9:15 PM9:30 PM9:45 PM67 67 67 67 67 67 67 68 68 68 67 67 67 67 66 66 66 65 65 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 65 65 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 63 63 63 62 63 63 62 62 61 61 60 59 57 57 58 59 61 62 64 65 66 67 67 68 68 69 69 69 69 69 69 68 68 69 69 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 67 67 67 66 66 65 65 65 65 65 65 64 64 64 65 65 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 63 63 63 61 56 57 56 57 52 53 54 58 53 52 45 45 47 54 59 61 63 65 65 66 66 67 67 68 68 69 69 69 69 66 67 67 67 67 66 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 66 65 65 65 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 62 62 62 62 62 61 60 60 59 58 56 57 58 59 60 62 64 65 66 66 67 67 68 68 68 68 69 69 69 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 68 68 68 67 67 67 67 66 66 66 65 65 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 65 65 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 63 63 63 62 63 63 62 62 61 61 60 59 57 57 58 59 61 62 64 65 66 67 67 68 68 69 69 69 69 69 69 68 68 69 69 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 67 67 67 66 66 65 65 65 65 65 65 64 64 64 65 65 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 63 63 63 61 56 57 56 57 52 53 54 58 53 52 45 45 47 54 59 61 63 65 65 66 66 67 67 68 68 69 69 69 69 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 68 68 68 67 67 67 67 66 66 66 65 65 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 65 65 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 63 63 63 62 63 63 62 62 61 61 60 59 57 57 58 59 61 62 64 65 66 67 67 68 68 69 69 69 69 69 69 SR-71 Interchange 68 68 69 69 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 67 67 67 66 66 65 65 65 65 65 65 64 64 64 65 65 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 63 63 63 61 56 57 56 57 52 53 54 58 53 52 45 45 47 54 59 61 63 65 65 66 66 67 67 68 68 69 69 69 69 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 65 65 65 65 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 65 64 64 64 64 64 65 64 64 64 64 65 64 64 63 57 54 54 55 55 54 52 52 50 50 50 49 47 50 49 50 51 50 53 55 56 57 57 59 61 62 62 63 65 65 65 66 66 66 66 67 67 65 65 67 68 69 69 69 68 68 68 68 68 67 67 67 68 68 67 67 67 67 67 68 67 66 65 65 67 67 66 62 52 44 44 46 44 43 39 38 35 35 35 32 28 33 31 35 36 35 41 46 48 50 51 55 60 63 63 65 69 69 68 64 64 64 64 64 64 63 63 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 63 63 64 64 64 64 63 63 63 64 64 64 62 57 54 54 55 55 55 52 52 51 51 51 49 48 51 49 51 51 51 53 56 56 57 58 59 61 62 62 63 65 65 64 66 67 67 68 68 67 68 68 68 68 67 67 67 67 65 64 65 64 63 64 63 64 65 63 63 62 64 64 63 63 62 61 61 61 60 58 52 47 40 29 28 30 29 28 29 31 35 31 30 27 27 30 35 36 40 46 49 55 60 58 62 64 66 66 66 68 68 69 59 58 59 58 58 58 59 58 58 59 59 60 60 59 59 58 57 58 58 58 57 58 58 58 57 57 57 57 57 58 57 58 58 59 59 56 51 49 48 47 51 51 50 48 47 47 47 46 45 44 46 45 47 48 49 49 51 53 53 52 52 55 56 55 58 60 59 59 58 59 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 61 61 62 62 60 60 59 59 58 59 58 58 59 59 58 58 58 58 58 58 59 59 60 59 59 60 55 44 39 37 35 42 42 38 34 32 34 34 31 28 25 31 28 33 34 37 38 43 48 47 48 48 53 56 56 59 62 61 61 Maple Street 65 66 67 67 66 67 66 67 67 67 67 68 67 66 66 65 64 64 64 63 63 64 64 63 63 62 59 57 58 63 62 63 62 63 61 55 46 38 31 27 33 40 35 27 27 27 36 27 22 21 22 23 30 30 45 47 49 56 57 61 60 62 63 62 66 68 68 67 69 69 70 70 70 70 69 69 69 70 70 70 70 70 70 69 69 70 69 69 69 70 70 69 70 69 69 67 67 70 71 70 70 68 67 66 59 54 49 45 45 48 48 43 36 36 43 38 28 24 23 20 25 29 42 50 52 57 58 64 64 65 64 65 68 69 70 69 63 65 66 66 64 64 65 66 66 65 66 66 66 64 64 63 62 61 63 62 58 61 61 61 60 57 58 55 58 59 61 62 60 61 58 55 45 40 35 31 34 40 37 32 29 30 34 26 22 20 20 19 24 28 42 46 49 51 55 60 57 57 57 59 63 66 66 66 59 59 59 59 58 58 58 58 58 58 59 59 59 58 59 59 58 59 60 60 60 62 63 63 62 62 62 62 62 62 62 63 62 63 62 61 58 56 54 52 53 55 54 51 50 51 51 49 48 48 48 49 50 52 58 60 60 60 61 63 62 62 61 62 64 66 66 65 48 40 36 37 36 36 35 35 34 36 39 39 40 40 42 45 45 48 51 54 60 62 67 67 67 68 67 68 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 68 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 66 66 65 66 65 65 66 66 66 67 67 68 68 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 66 67 68 68 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 68 67 68 67 66 67 67 66 67 65 67 67 66 65 64 64 64 65 66 66 67 65 65 64 61 59 55 52 51 52 55 54 51 50 50 49 48 51 51 51 50 49 52 58 59 61 62 63 64 63 64 64 65 66 68 69 69 75 76 76 76 75 75 74 73 74 74 75 75 75 75 74 73 74 73 73 73 67 72 74 71 67 66 65 66 67 70 72 73 68 68 64 56 51 45 37 36 36 46 42 36 35 34 33 30 37 38 36 34 31 36 45 49 57 59 60 63 62 64 65 67 71 75 76 76 Main Street 67 67 66 65 63 62 61 60 60 57 57 56 55 53 50 49 48 49 49 50 46 47 49 46 45 43 44 45 46 46 45 45 44 45 45 45 40 39 41 40 39 41 40 37 36 30 26 25 28 30 25 28 31 40 44 46 44 47 49 48 48 51 53 56 57 61 63 64 67 68 68 68 68 68 67 68 68 67 68 68 67 63 61 60 61 65 65 66 64 64 65 64 64 62 63 63 63 64 64 64 63 64 64 62 57 56 60 60 59 61 60 56 50 40 33 33 36 40 34 36 43 54 58 61 58 62 61 59 59 61 63 64 64 67 68 68 74 73 74 73 73 74 73 74 73 73 73 72 72 70 69 68 68 69 69 69 69 68 69 69 69 70 69 68 69 70 69 69 70 68 67 66 66 67 68 68 68 68 67 64 59 50 42 44 45 51 41 44 52 65 68 69 70 71 71 71 71 72 73 73 73 73 73 73 71 71 71 70 70 69 69 67 67 67 67 67 68 68 67 67 67 68 67 66 67 67 67 66 67 66 66 66 65 65 66 66 65 64 64 64 64 64 64 61 60 55 53 47 41 33 33 35 36 38 35 38 47 52 60 64 64 64 65 65 66 66 66 66 66 67 67 67 70 71 73 74 74 74 73 72 73 72 72 72 73 72 71 70 69 70 68 69 68 67 68 68 68 67 67 67 65 67 67 68 66 67 68 66 67 67 67 62 62 51 50 35 28 26 28 31 33 32 29 39 47 51 65 70 71 70 71 71 70 71 71 70 71 71 71 72 66 67 68 69 69 69 67 67 67 67 68 68 68 67 67 67 66 66 65 65 64 64 64 65 65 64 64 64 62 63 63 64 62 60 61 59 64 63 62 58 58 49 51 35 28 25 28 29 33 32 34 40 46 49 60 65 65 65 66 66 66 66 67 66 67 67 68 68 66 66 68 68 68 68 68 68 67 61 60 67 69 68 68 68 67 67 66 67 66 66 66 67 67 66 66 65 64 65 66 66 57 56 57 52 59 65 58 39 37 39 36 25 24 23 25 25 30 26 24 27 35 37 51 65 67 67 67 67 67 67 68 67 67 68 68 68 McKinley Street 58 55 55 56 56 57 57 58 56 52 50 56 58 57 55 56 55 55 54 54 54 53 54 54 54 54 54 53 53 54 54 53 47 46 48 44 48 53 47 33 33 36 30 22 21 20 23 23 27 24 22 24 29 31 43 53 54 55 54 56 56 56 56 55 55 56 56 55 68 69 68 69 69 68 68 65 66 63 64 67 68 68 68 68 68 69 68 68 68 68 69 68 68 69 69 68 68 69 68 67 67 64 64 63 66 67 65 59 60 60 53 47 49 49 48 47 53 54 55 55 55 57 60 64 65 65 65 66 66 68 68 68 69 69 69 70 62 62 62 63 62 62 62 60 60 58 56 56 62 62 61 62 60 60 60 60 60 61 60 61 62 60 61 60 60 61 61 60 60 60 59 60 61 61 61 59 59 61 60 60 60 59 58 58 57 57 56 57 57 58 59 60 61 60 61 61 60 60 61 60 60 60 61 61 Orange County Line to SR-71 SR-71 to Maple Street Interchange Maple Street Interchange to Main Street Interchange Main Street Interchange to McKinley Street Interchange; Through I-15 Interchange East of McKinley Street RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Existing Conditions May 9, 2012 3.35 Table 3-14 Westbound Weekday Speeds Recorded by PeMS on SR-91 (5AM – 10PM) Location 5:00 AM5:15 AM5:30 AM5:45 AM6:00 AM6:15 AM6:30 AM6:45 AM7:00 AM7:15 AM7:30 AM7:45 AM8:00 AM8:15 AM8:30 AM8:45 AM9:00 AM9:15 AM9:30 AM9:45 AM10:00 AM10:15 AM10:30 AM10:45 AM11:00 AM11:15 AM11:30 AM11:45 AM12:00 PM12:15 PM12:30 PM12:45 PM1:00 PM1:15 PM1:30 PM1:45 PM2:00 PM2:15 PM2:30 PM2:45 PM3:00 PM3:15 PM3:30 PM3:45 PM4:00 PM4:15 PM4:30 PM4:45 PM5:00 PM5:15 PM5:30 PM5:45 PM6:00 PM6:15 PM6:30 PM6:45 PM7:00 PM7:15 PM7:30 PM7:45 PM8:00 PM8:15 PM8:30 PM8:45 PM9:00 PM9:15 PM9:30 PM9:45 PM45 36 29 36 51 53 53 51 59 46 43 42 54 62 56 55 56 63 65 66 65 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 58 57 64 64 66 67 67 67 67 67 59 57 56 50 42 31 28 27 38 38 25 23 21 23 32 41 53 56 61 66 67 67 67 68 68 66 67 67 67 68 43 36 28 30 49 54 51 45 48 35 39 43 48 53 55 56 57 58 64 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 66 65 57 53 58 58 64 67 67 67 68 67 58 56 56 48 41 28 26 25 28 30 27 25 23 24 34 41 52 57 61 66 68 63 67 68 68 67 68 68 67 68 56 48 32 34 44 52 47 45 40 37 38 46 53 55 57 56 58 59 63 65 65 65 64 65 65 65 65 61 58 62 61 63 64 64 63 64 65 64 63 62 63 62 60 59 58 55 52 51 49 47 43 46 51 55 58 61 62 64 65 65 65 66 67 66 67 66 67 67 McKinley Street 50 34 30 33 30 25 24 21 20 20 21 31 33 27 28 33 43 45 52 55 55 56 55 56 55 56 54 54 55 56 57 56 56 57 57 57 58 57 57 57 57 58 58 57 55 49 46 46 45 50 51 52 52 52 53 54 55 55 56 55 55 56 56 56 56 57 57 57 50 33 27 25 24 24 24 25 25 25 25 25 25 26 27 27 36 42 51 60 63 63 64 63 63 63 63 63 62 62 62 62 62 60 59 61 61 61 61 60 61 62 62 62 62 61 60 61 60 61 61 61 61 62 62 62 64 64 65 66 66 66 66 67 67 66 67 68 42 35 36 37 36 35 35 36 36 37 37 36 36 37 38 38 40 42 49 53 59 61 61 61 60 60 59 61 61 60 60 54 52 52 52 57 59 60 61 60 60 59 60 59 60 59 58 60 60 61 61 62 62 64 63 63 63 66 68 69 68 68 69 68 68 66 65 66 Main Street 34 22 21 23 22 22 22 21 21 22 24 22 23 23 25 27 29 33 37 45 52 57 61 61 60 61 60 61 62 61 54 50 50 50 51 58 62 62 62 62 62 61 63 64 63 63 62 61 63 64 64 65 63 64 64 64 65 65 65 65 65 65 66 65 65 64 65 64 37 29 25 26 25 24 23 22 22 24 26 24 24 26 26 29 31 34 38 44 50 56 59 60 59 59 59 60 60 59 52 49 49 50 50 56 60 61 61 61 61 60 62 63 62 63 62 61 62 62 62 63 62 62 63 63 64 64 64 64 63 63 64 63 63 62 63 61 34 27 23 22 20 19 19 19 19 21 22 20 21 22 24 25 27 30 33 35 38 39 41 41 41 40 39 40 40 40 40 39 39 39 41 41 41 42 42 43 42 41 42 43 44 44 43 43 43 44 44 44 43 43 42 40 40 40 40 39 38 39 39 40 39 39 38 37 56 53 51 48 46 45 44 44 44 46 48 46 48 48 49 50 52 54 56 57 59 60 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 59 59 60 60 61 61 61 61 61 62 62 62 62 62 62 62 62 62 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 55 48 46 40 34 31 29 29 30 35 39 34 38 40 40 42 46 50 52 56 60 61 62 61 61 62 61 62 62 61 62 62 62 64 64 61 61 61 61 60 60 60 60 60 60 61 61 61 62 61 62 63 64 64 64 65 64 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 66 66 66 66 68 65 58 46 37 36 33 34 34 41 42 37 43 46 48 49 56 58 61 67 73 75 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 75 76 75 75 75 76 75 75 76 76 76 76 76 76 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 61 57 52 44 37 36 34 34 35 41 43 38 42 44 46 46 51 53 55 60 67 68 69 70 69 70 69 70 69 69 70 70 70 70 69 70 70 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 68 68 67 67 67 68 69 68 69 69 70 70 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 62 60 56 51 48 48 46 47 48 51 51 50 51 53 53 54 56 58 58 61 64 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 66 65 66 65 66 66 66 65 65 65 65 65 65 66 66 66 66 66 66 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 66 66 66 55 52 43 33 30 31 27 28 31 38 35 34 35 40 41 42 45 48 47 52 56 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 59 58 59 58 58 59 59 59 58 58 59 60 59 59 60 62 61 60 60 60 60 60 61 62 61 61 61 61 62 62 61 61 61 61 61 62 61 61 61 61 64 62 58 54 52 53 52 52 55 57 56 57 57 58 60 60 60 61 62 63 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 65 65 64 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 66 65 66 66 65 66 66 66 66 65 66 66 66 66 66 65 65 66 64 55 49 46 50 48 48 55 58 56 60 59 60 64 64 63 64 67 70 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 70 71 71 71 71 71 70 70 71 71 71 70 71 71 70 71 70 71 69 69 70 69 70 70 70 71 71 71 72 73 72 73 72 72 73 73 73 73 72 73 63 63 59 55 55 56 55 56 59 60 59 61 60 61 63 63 62 62 63 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 63 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 63 64 64 65 64 64 65 64 64 65 65 65 65 65 65 66 66 66 65 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 67 67 67 68 67 67 68 68 68 68 68 68 67 67 66 66 66 65 65 65 65 65 65 64 65 64 65 65 65 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 63 63 63 63 63 62 62 61 61 60 59 57 57 59 60 61 63 64 66 66 67 67 68 69 69 69 69 69 70 70 SR-71 Interchange 66 67 67 67 67 66 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 66 65 65 65 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 62 62 62 62 62 61 60 60 59 58 56 57 58 59 60 62 64 65 66 66 67 67 68 68 68 68 69 69 69 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 68 68 68 67 67 67 67 66 66 66 65 65 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 65 65 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 63 63 63 62 63 63 62 62 61 61 60 59 57 57 58 59 61 62 64 65 66 67 67 68 68 69 69 69 69 69 69 60 51 43 37 33 27 27 23 22 24 27 33 39 43 45 53 58 58 58 59 60 62 64 65 66 66 67 67 67 67 67 66 66 67 67 68 68 68 68 68 68 67 67 67 68 67 67 67 66 66 66 66 67 67 69 70 71 71 71 71 72 72 72 73 72 72 72 72 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 68 68 68 67 67 67 67 66 66 66 65 65 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 65 65 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 63 63 63 62 63 63 62 62 61 61 60 59 57 57 58 59 61 62 64 65 66 67 67 68 68 69 69 69 69 69 69 60 51 43 37 33 27 27 23 22 24 27 33 39 43 45 53 58 58 58 59 60 62 64 65 66 66 67 67 67 67 67 66 66 67 67 68 68 68 68 68 68 67 67 67 68 67 67 67 66 66 66 66 67 67 69 70 71 71 71 71 72 72 72 73 72 72 72 72 East of McKinley Street McKinley Street Interchange to Main Street Interchange; Through I-15 Interchange Main Street Interchange to Maple Street Interchange Maple Street Interchange to SR-71 SR-71 to Orange County Line RIVERSIDE COUNTY 91 4.1 4.0 SocioEconomic Variables and Land Use This section contains detailed forecasts and supporting commentary on socioeconomic trends in the six counties constituting the “Study Area” between 2010 and 2035 (the Forecast Period). The Study Area consists of Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside and Imperial counties as designated by the RivTAM/TransCAD traffic model. The forecast data developed by Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB Consult) are referred to throughout this section as the “PB Forecasts” or “Base Case” forecasts. 4.1 SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS Employment1 in the Study Area is forecast to grow by 2.0 million jobs, from 7.1 to 9.1 million during the Forecast Period, a compound annual growth rate of 0.98%. Households2 in the Study Area will grow by 1.2 million over the Forecast Period from 5.9 to 7.0 million, a 0.73% compound annual growth rate. Housing growth will closely track job growth region -wide, although constraints on housing production in certain high cost areas, including many parts of Orange County, will perpetuate localized jobs/housing imbalances. For instance, the relatively high cost of living in Orange County has caused many people with jobs there to seek lower cost housing options in places such as the Inland Empire 3. This relationship between Orange County and the Inland Empire, which results in the strong traffic demand in the SR 91 corridor, has developed over time and is expected to remain in the long -term. Table 4-1 presents Study Area employment and household forecasts. Table 4-1 PB Study Area Employment and Household Forecast (Thousands) 1 “Employment, unless otherwise stated, refers to a comprehensive measure of non0farm at place wage and salary jobs plus self employed (including proprietorships) and government workers. 2 “Households,” unless otherwise stated, refers to occupied dwelling units. 3 The “Inland Empire” is, generally, the western portions of Riverside and San Bernardino counties, including but not limited to the cities of Corona, Chino, Ontario, Riverside, and San Bernardino. 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2010 - 2035 Employment Total Employment 7,133 7,601 8,061 8,460 8,799 9,114 Incremental Growth 468 460 398 339 315 1,980 Average Annual Growth 94 92 80 68 63 79 CAGR [1] 1.28%1.18%0.97%0.79%0.71%0.98% Households Total Households 5,880 6,082 6,344 6,594 6,825 7,044 Incremental Growth 202 262 250 231 219 1,165 Average Annual Growth 40 52 50 46 44 47 CAGR 0.68%0.85%0.78%0.69%0.63%0.73% [1] Compound Annual Growth Rate RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 SocioEconomic Variables and Land Use May 9, 2012 4.2 4.1.1 Study Area Employment Summary The California Economic Development Department (EDD) reports that the Study Area added approximately 56,400 jobs annually (on average) between 1990 and 2007.4 Between 2007 and 2009, the Study Area lost approximately 725,000 jobs, equating to around 10% of its total job base, bringing the total number of jobs down to approximately 7.1 million, a level not seen since 1999. The Base Case forecasts includes 79,200 new jobs per year added to the Study Area during the Forecast Period, a level of average long-term growth that is greater than that experienced before the 2008 recession. This growth is due in part to the recovery f rom the 2008 recession, but also will results from the diversity and expected continued growth of the various urban cores within the Study Area. Figure 4-1 shows historical Study Area employment and the Base Case employment forecast. The black line is the linear trend line of the historical data series. The figure shows that the Base Case forecast is not expected to “catch up” with the historical trend line within the Forecast Period. Figure 4-1 Historical and Base Case Employment Frorecasts Employment growth between 2010 and 2015 is forecast to be slower than the recovery periods that followed comparable recessions in the past due, in large part, to the following three characteristics of the 2008 recession; 4 California Employment Development Department Labor Market Information Division. RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 SocioEconomic Variables and Land Use May 9, 2012 4.3 (i) The negative impacts that the recession has had on the credit markets, which will constrain business lending (especially for small businesses) in the short -term, (ii) Construction activity, which is typically one of the leading growth sectors in economic recovery periods, is expected to be slow for several years as markets stabilize and vacant residential and non-residential properties are absorbed, and (iii) The general trend of businesses doing more with less, including sharing work space and working from home, investments in computer technology and automation to reduce the number of workers, and outsourcing to reduce overhead and increase profits. The recovery from the 2008 recession is forecast to be anemic in the short -term, but will take hold between 2012 and 2014 when a period of stronger job growth is expected to begin and be sustained through 2020. In the longer-term, the forecasts reflect; (i) the diverse mix of employment in the Study Area, (ii) a continuing trend of higher growth in service and retail employment, (iii) continuing decreases in certain manufacturing categories, some of which are migrating within the Study Area to less expensive operating environments such as the Inland Empire, and (iv) a lower level of technical service jobs that are expected to continue moving off shore. The general slowing of job growth in the Study Area, e specially after 2025, represents the maturing of the remaining high growth areas, while those areas of the Study Area that are currently mature, such as Los Angeles County, will continue to grow only through redevelopment to higher densities. Within the Study Area, the most significant employment growth is expected in the Inland Empire where Riverside and San Bernardino counties’ employment is expected to grow at average annual rates of 2.14% and 1.61% respectively over the Forecast Period. Inland Empir e job growth will result from two broad trends; (i) the need for nearby “population serving” jobs to serve large numbers of new residents, and (ii) the high cost of doing business in established Orange and Los Angeles county locations. Transportation and trade related jobs have for years accounted for much of the job growth in the Inland Empire as many distribution facilities serving Ontario International Airport and the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles are located there. This indust ry will continue to be a significant contributor to Inland Empire job growth though changes to international shipping RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 SocioEconomic Variables and Land Use May 9, 2012 4.4 routes, specifically those related to Panama Canal expansion efforts will temper growth in the long-term. 4.1.2 Study Area Household Summary Between 1990 and 2005, the Study Area added just over 50,000 new households per year on average. This trend is expected to continue in the future, as reflected in the approximately 46,600 annual households expected to be added during the Forecast Period. The PB forecast takes into consideration the current inventory of homes for sale, especially those in lower price point markets, which are expected to remain unsold until prices moderate and credit is extended to buyers. Growth during the 2010 to 2015 period is expected to be lower than the 2015 to 2020 period in light of the slow job recovery outlined above. Household growth will lag job growth between 2010 and 2015 as unemployed workers already represented in household numbers begin to find jobs. Overall, household formations reflect a higher number of employed persons per household in Orange and Los Angeles counties due to the higher proportion of dual income earning households and the daily in-migration of workers from surrounding counties. As noted in Figure 4-2, the Study Area is expected to keep pace with the historical trend between 2010 and 2035 despite starting from a slightly lower base. During the Forecast Period, the Study Area will add 1.7 new jobs per household, driving the overall jobs per household ratio up from 1.2 in 2010 to 1.3 in 2035. Figure 4-2 Historical and Base Case Household Forecasts RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 SocioEconomic Variables and Land Use May 9, 2012 4.5 While residential growth will continue to occur in higher priced areas like Orange County, the bulk of household formations will occur in the western portions of the Inland Empire where price points are lower than most Orange and Los Angeles county markets and reasonable commutes to Orange and Los Angeles county job centers remain possible. In the long-term, the majority of residential growth in Orange and Los Angeles counties will be through redevelopment. 4.2 FORECAST METHODOLOGY The socioeconomic forecasts developed by PB for the Riverside County Transportation Analysis Model (RivTAM) – defined Study Area (which includes the entirety of Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Imperial counties) have specific content and geographical characteristics that are outlined in this section. The Study Area forecast discussed above is the aggregation of 5,531 individual traffic analysis zone (TAZ) forecasts 5. As such the disaggregated TAZ forecasts can be aggregated by count y, city or Focus Area to aid in the analysis. The term “Focus Areas” refers to aggregations of TAZs assembled by PB that represent major projects or development areas that received additional attention in the modeling process due to their expected impact on SR 91 Express Lane traffic. Figure 4-3 is a map of the Study Area, showing the six counties represented. Figure 4-4 shows a blow-up of the SR 91 Corridor and major connectors. Figure 4-3 Map of the Study Area 5 Traffic analysis zones are geographical areas, subsets of Census Tracts, established based on traffic levels and generally bound by roadways. California San Bernardino County Riverside County Imperial County Orange County Los Angeles County Ventura County RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 SocioEconomic Variables and Land Use May 9, 2012 4.6 Figure 4-4 Map of SR-91 Corridor The forecast provides the socioeconomic inputs for 2,243 TAZs in Los Angeles County, 666 TAZs in Orange County, 1,900 TAZs in Riverside County, 402 TAZs in San Bernadino County, and 320 TAZs in Ventura and Imperial Counties. Together, the area comprising these 5,531 TAZs is referred to as the “Study Area” and is represented by the counties shaded in Figure 4-3. From the standpoint of traffic on SR 91, the most important portion of the Study Area is the area illustrated in Figure 4-5. The current and planned developments in these areas were given the most thorough review by the team. Areas that are far away from the SR 91 corridor, such as Ventura and Imperial counties were not reviewed with great detail and are not included in certain analyses detailed in this report. San Bernardino County Riverside County Orange County Los Angeles County SR-241 RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 SocioEconomic Variables and Land Use May 9, 2012 4.7 Figure 4-5 Area of Focus for Socioeconomic Analysis The specific analytical steps taken to complete the Base Case Forecasts were:  Reviewed Western Riverside County Council of Governments (WRCOG), Center for Demographic Research (CDR) Orange County Projections (OCP), Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and other regional planning agency forecasts to understand how each of those agencies expect long-term growth to occur.  Incorporated the WRCOG (RivTAM/TransCAD) TAZ structure and 52 model parameters into the PB socioeconomic forecasting model and performed tests to ensure that socioeconomic model outputs flow seamlessly into the traffic model.  Reviewed economic reports and forecasts from the Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation (LAEDC), UCLA Anderson School, Chapman University, California State RCTC Express Lanes SR-91 I-15OCTA Express Lanes RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 SocioEconomic Variables and Land Use May 9, 2012 4.8 University (Fullerton), California Department of Finance, IHS Global Insight, Woods & Poole Economics, and other third party data sources to understand current National, State, and local trends in critical trip production and attraction variables of households and at-place employment.  Identified shifts in county and small-area development patterns that have occurred since the last adopted revisions of the WRCOG, OCP, and SCAG forecasts.  Established 2010 values for the 52 RivTAM/TransCAD model parameters at the TAZ level for use by Stantec in calibrating the traffic model.  Conducted interviews with local land owners, developers, real estate brokers, planning agencies and associations, and real estate development advisors. This interview program guided the land use team in uncovering issues that would impact future development in the Study Area, and confirmed focus area development potential.  Conducted field investigations of critical Focus Areas to update information on potential development capacity, entitlements, inventories, and constraints to development. These investigations supported adjustments to TAZ level allocations of new jobs and households.  Developed Study Area, county and Focus Area employment and household growth rates for the Forecast Period based on a review of historical trends from the Califo rnia Employment Development Department, national and regional forecasts, economic reports, and first-hand information gathered through the interview process.  Identified candidate areas for redevelopment and infill development at higher densities and allocated development activity accordingly in later forecast years.  Using information generated through the preceding steps, prepared a Base Case forecast for the critical variables (Households and Jobs) at the Study Area, county, Focus Area, and TAZ levels. Figure 4-6 presents an overview of the PB land use model. RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 SocioEconomic Variables and Land Use May 9, 2012 4.9 Figure 4-6 Illustration of the PB Land Use Forecast Model Methodology The Base Case forecast assumes no major additions to the highway system in Orange County, specifically the southern extension of the Foothill Transportation Corridor. Additionally, no major east-west corridor between Orange County and the Inland Empire, such as an elevated highway in the SR 91 corridor or tunnel of similar capacity, is assumed to be built before 2035. The absence of these facilities has a dampening effect on the growth of new jobs and households in certain parts of the Study Area. The Base Case does assume RCTC and OCTA approved improvements to SR 91 as well as other network improvements included in the Stantec traffic model. RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 SocioEconomic Variables and Land Use May 9, 2012 4.10 As stated above, the Base Case Forecast has been developed using the RivTAM/TransCAD model structure and provides inputs to the traffic model for all 52 socioeconomic parameters and 5,531 TAZs. Some forecast parameters are directly related to, and were therefore derived from, the primary forecast parameters (total at-place employment and households) while others were adopted from the SCAG base data. Table 4-2 through Table 4-7present each variable and the methodology used to determine its ultimate value. Table 4-2 Forecast Methodology for Population Variables Table 4-3 Forecast Methodology for Household Variables Table 4-4 Forecast Methodology for Scholl Enrolement Population Variables (7)Forecast Methodology Total Population = Residential population + group quarter population Group Quarter Population = Values adopted from SCAG/WRCOG data Residential Population = Forecast of total households * household size Population by Age (4 Categories)= Total population * % by age category adopted from SCAG/WRCOG data Household Variables (17)Forecast Methodology Total Number of Households = total households Forecast by PB Households by Household Size (4 Categories)= total households * share of households by category adopted from SCAG/WRCOG data Households by Age of Household Head (4 Categories) = total households * share of households by category adopted from SCAG/WRCOG data Households by Number of Workers (4 Categories)= total households * share of households by category adopted from SCAG/WRCOG data Households by Household Income (4 Variables)= total households * share of households by category adopted from SCAG/WRCOG data School Enrollment (2)Forecast Methodology K-12 School Enrollment = % of population ages 5-17 enrolled in K-12 adopted from SCAG/WRCOG data * new age 5-17 population College / University Enrollment = % of population ages 18-24 enrolled in college adopted from SCAG/WRCOG data * new age 18-24 population RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 SocioEconomic Variables and Land Use May 9, 2012 4.11 Table 4-5 Forecast Methodology for Household Income Table 4-6 Forecast Methodology for Workers Table 4-7 Forecast Methodology for Employment Variables 4.3 HISTORICAL DATA AND TRENDS IN THE STUDY AREA 4.3.1 Historical Study Area Employment Trends Employment in the Study Area grew from 6.9 million in 1990 to 7.1 million in 2010, corresponding to an average of 12,700 new jobs per year and a compound annual growth rate of 0.2%. This historical period takes into account the 2008 recession without the pending recovery and therefore paints a somewhat modest picture of the Study Area’s employment growth and relative performance over the past 20 years. Some portions of the Study Area, specifically Los Angeles County and parts of Orange County, are indeed mature job markets that have experienced little growth in recent history; but overall, the Study Area has exhibited resiliency in post recessionary periods, the redevelopment of obsolete properties in mature areas, and steady growth in emerging submarkets. Household Income (5)Forecast Methodology Median Household Income = Real median household income growth factor as validated by third party forecasts Median Household Income by Income Categories (4 Categories) = population growth * share of population adopted from SCAG/WRCOG data Workers (4)Forecast Methodology Total Workers = total workers adopted from SCAG/WRCOG data and adjusted to conform with long-term employment Forecast trends Workers by Earnings (3 Categories)= total workers * share of workers in each earnings category adopted from SCAG/WRCOG data Employment Variables (17)Forecast Methodology Total Employment = total employment Forecast by PB Employment by Industry (13 Categories)= total employment * share of employment by industry adopted from SCAG/WRCOG data Employment by Wage (3 Categories)= total employment * share of employment by category adopted from SCAG/WRCOG data RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 SocioEconomic Variables and Land Use May 9, 2012 4.12 Removing the 2005 to 2010 period from the historical averages shows a better representation of the Study Area’s performance in normal economic times. Between 1990 and 2005, the Study Average grew by about 56,200 jobs per year with the strongest growth in the 1995 to 2000 time period when the economy was recovering from a recession that occurred in the early 1990s. Table 4-8 shows that the vast majority of job growth during this time period occurred in the Inland Empire and Orange County. Los Angeles County, the most mature county in the Study Area, remained relatively steady at about 4.4 million jobs during this period despite significant job losses during the recessionary period of 1990 to 1995. The smaller counties of Ventura and Imperial grew at moderate rates, though their distant locations and relatively small size make them somewhat irrelevant to traffic levels in the SR 91 corridor. Table 4-8 Total Employment Growth by County, 1990 – 2010 Source: California Employment Development Department / Labor Market Information Division Annual Averages, PB Analysis. Data adjusted for self employed persons. 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 1990 - 2010 Los Angeles 4,494,000 4,066,000 4,418,000 4,366,000 4,079,000 Average Annual Growth -85,600 70,400 -10,400 -57,400 -20,750 CAGR -2.00%1.70%-0.20%-1.40%-0.50% Orange 1,266,000 1,244,000 1,500,000 1,607,000 1,461,000 Average Annual Growth -4,400 51,200 21,400 -29,200 9,750 CAGR -0.30%3.80%1.40%-1.90%0.70% Riverside 350,000 387,000 508,000 645,000 577,000 Average Annual Growth 7,400 24,200 27,400 -13,600 11,350 CAGR 2.00%5.60%4.90%-2.20%2.50% San Bernardino 447,000 483,000 588,000 700,000 633,000 Average Annual Growth 7,200 21,000 22,400 -13,400 9,300 CAGR 1.60%4.00%3.50%-2.00%1.80% Ventura 270,000 278,000 321,000 343,000 321,000 Average Annual Growth 1,600 8,600 4,400 -4,400 2,550 CAGR 0.60%2.90%1.30%-1.30%0.90% Imperial 49,000 53,000 55,000 58,000 59,000 Average Annual Growth 800 400 600 200 500 CAGR 1.60%0.70%1.10%0.30%0.90% Study Area Total 6,876,000 6,511,000 7,390,000 7,719,000 7,130,000 Average Annual Growth -73,000 175,800 65,800 -117,800 12,700 CAGR -1.10%2.60%0.90%-1.60%0.20% RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 SocioEconomic Variables and Land Use May 9, 2012 4.13 Figure 4-7 Employment Growth by County, Change from 1990 Value While job growth in the SR 91 corridor has been healthy for the past 20 years, Orange County and the Inland Empire have very different employment compositions which stem from fundamental characteristics of each area and their respective stages of the socioeconomic lifecycle. The coastal areas make Orange County one of the most sought after places to live in Southern California, despite the relatively high cost. With many business owners and managers wishing to work near where they live, coupled with the presence of Santa Ana Airport (aka the John Wayne Airport), certain industry sectors have clustered around central and coa stal Orange County, including many business services, financial services, education and health services, and leisure and hospitality services. Figure 4-8 shows that these four industries grew by 226,000 jobs between 1990 and 2005, representing over 70% of job growth in Orange County. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160% 180% 200% 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010Percent Change from 1990 ValueYear Los Angeles Orange Riverside San Bernardino Ventura Imperial Study Area Total RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 SocioEconomic Variables and Land Use May 9, 2012 4.14 Figure 4-8 Orange County Job Growth by Industry, 1990 – 2005 The Inland Empire experienced more diverse job growth between 1990 and 2005, but the strongest growth was focused in population serving employment. The four fastest growing job sectors between 1990 and 2005 in Riverside and San Bernardino counties (togeth er) were professional and business services, government, retail trade, and construction, though these only accounted for 54% of total job growth over the 1990 to 2005 period. Manufacturing and transportation-related industries also grew significantly. These six industry groups are expected to experience the most growth over the Forecast Period as the populations of Riverside and San Bernardino counties continue to grow and generate demand for retail and service jobs, and companies requiring large floor plates, such as distributers and manufacturers, seek less expensive locations that are still within reasonable proximity to the port facilities in Los Angeles County. Figure 4-9 shows the Inland Empire industry growth distribution between 1990 and 2005. Notable is that it has more relatively equally sized pie pieces, compared to the Orange County chart above, which is dominated by a few large pie pieces. RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 SocioEconomic Variables and Land Use May 9, 2012 4.15 Figure 4-9 Riverside and San Bernardino County Job Growth by Industry, 1990 – 2005 Understanding employment growth within Orange County and the Inland Empire betw een 1990 and 2005 is certainly important and will impact the magnitude and composition of growth programmed into the long-term forecasts. Equally important to the forecast, though more relevant to the short-term outlook, is how these industries were eroded during the 2008 recession. The 2008 recession was focused in real estate related industries but had far reaching impacts that were slightly different in the Inland Empire than in Orange County because of the industries represented in each, as outlined above. Table 4-9 shows annual job gains and losses by industry in Orange County between 2005 and 2010. The table is color -coded green, yellow and red to show when employment within a given industry grew, stayed the same, or declined, respectively, when compared to the previous year. For instance, almost every industry grew in 2005 (with the exception of Mining & Logging), but in 2006, Transportation , Warehousing, & Utilities; Information; Financial Activities; and Other Service all began to decline. In 2007, 2008, and 2009, the number of red colored cells dominates, showing the ripple effect of the contraction that initiated with the residential rea l estate market collapse. The most significant job losses in Orange County between 2007 and 2010 were in the construction (-41,000 jobs), manufacturing (-31,000 jobs), retail trade (-22,000 jobs), financial activities (25,000 jobs), and professional and business services (-37,000 jobs). These five industries accounted for 92% of job losses in Orange County during this time period. RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 SocioEconomic Variables and Land Use May 9, 2012 4.16 Table 4-9 Orange County Employment by Industry Table 4-10 shows the same information and table format for Riverside and San Bernardino counties combined. The most significant job losses between 2007 and 2010 were in th e construction (-59,000 jobs), manufacturing (-36,000 jobs), retail trade (-28,000 jobs), professional and business services (-23,000 jobs), and leisure & hospitality (-14,000 jobs) industires. These five industries accounted for 86% of job losses in Rive rside and San Bernardino counties during this time period. Table 4-10 Riverside and San Bernardino County Employment by Industry Industry / Sector 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Growth % Growth Total Farm 6,000 6,000 5,000 5,000 4,000 4,000 -1,000 -20.00% Mining & Logging 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 -0.00% Construction 107,000 114,000 111,000 98,000 79,000 70,000 -41,000 -36.90% Manufacturing 196,000 196,000 194,000 187,000 166,000 163,000 -31,000 -16.00% Wholesale Trade 89,000 90,000 93,000 93,000 86,000 85,000 -8,000 -8.60% Retail Trade 170,000 173,000 173,000 167,000 152,000 151,000 -22,000 -12.70% Trans., Warehsng., Util. 31,000 30,000 31,000 31,000 30,000 30,000 -1,000 -3.20% Information 35,000 34,000 34,000 32,000 29,000 27,000 -7,000 -20.60% Financial Activities 149,000 148,000 137,000 121,000 113,000 112,000 -25,000 -18.20% Profess. & Buss. Services 284,000 295,000 294,000 286,000 257,000 257,000 -37,000 -12.60% Edu. & Health Services 143,000 148,000 153,000 162,000 162,000 164,000 11,000 7.20% Leisure & Hospitality 177,000 182,000 186,000 189,000 182,000 189,000 3,000 1.60% Other Services 52,000 51,000 51,000 50,000 46,000 46,000 -5,000 -9.80% Government 167,000 168,000 171,000 173,000 169,000 165,000 -6,000 -3.50% Total Employment 1,607,000 1,636,000 1,634,000 1,595,000 1,476,000 1,464,000 -170,000 -10.40% 2007 - 2010 Industry / Sector 2005 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Growth % Growth Total Farm 20,000 18,000 18,000 17,000 16,000 17,000 -1,000 -5.60% Mining & Logging 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 -0.00% Construction 134,000 139,000 122,000 99,000 73,000 63,000 -59,000 -48.40% Manufacturing 131,000 134,000 128,000 116,000 96,000 92,000 -36,000 -28.10% Wholesale Trade 54,000 58,000 62,000 58,000 52,000 50,000 -12,000 -19.40% Retail Trade 179,000 187,000 191,000 182,000 167,000 163,000 -28,000 -14.70% Trans., Warehsng., Util. 65,000 69,000 75,000 76,000 72,000 71,000 -4,000 -5.30% Information 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 -0.00% Financial Activities 53,000 56,000 54,000 50,000 48,000 46,000 -8,000 -14.80% Profess. & Buss. Services 144,000 154,000 158,000 149,000 138,000 135,000 -23,000 -14.60% Edu. & Health Services 130,000 132,000 138,000 142,000 144,000 144,000 6,000 4.30% Leisure & Hospitality 133,000 139,000 144,000 142,000 133,000 130,000 -14,000 -9.70% Other Services 45,000 46,000 45,000 44,000 40,000 39,000 -6,000 -13.30% Government 239,000 241,000 244,000 249,000 247,000 243,000 -1,000 -0.40% Total Employment 1,345,000 1,391,000 1,397,000 1,342,000 1,244,000 1,211,000 -186,000 -13.30% RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 SocioEconomic Variables and Land Use May 9, 2012 4.17 Comparing Table 4-9 and Table 4-10 reveals several key characteristics of each area. First, the greatest losses in both areas were in the construction industry. While this is not surprising given the root of the recession, the construction industry in Riverside and San Bernardino counties was much more severely hit, being virtually cut in half. This illustrates the fervor of speculative residential development that was occurring in that area during the mid 2000s. Orange County also lost a significant portion of its construction employme nt as residential and commercial development came to a halt in late 2007. As noted above, across the board construction employment declines were expected due to the nature of the 2008 recession. Looking at the next hardest hit industries in Orange Coun ty compared to Riverside and San Bernardino counties reveals the true difference between each individual micro-economy. Orange County lost 63,000 jobs in the business & professional and financial services industries combined, illustrating again that many higher paying jobs housed in office space were located and lost there. Many of these jobs were related to the residential real estate market collapse but also to general business and investment services and linked to the general business climate of the region. Conversely, the highest non-construction losses in Riverside and San Bernardino counties were in manufacturing and wholesale trade (combined to account for 48,000 lost jobs). These jobs are linked nationally and internationally and are perhaps less dependent on the regional recovery and more associated with national consumption trends and recovery. Another difference between the two areas, which is apparent from the color coding of Table 4-9 and Table 4-10, is that in Orange County, the 2008 recession began to take hold in 200 6 and then spread to the various industries in 2007 and 2008. The Inland Empire counties began to lose jobs about one year later, and when job losses began, they were realized across almost every industry segment at the same time. This suggests that more Inland Empire jobs were directly linked to the real estate industry, which stopped growing abruptly in 2007 both locally and nationally. When development stopped, the ripple effect in the Inland Empire was immediate. It also suggests that the recovery will take hold in Orange County one to two years sooner than the Inland Empire, which was also the opinion of several of the industry professionals interviewed by the PB research team. 4.3.2 Historical Study Area Household Trends Historical residential building permit data from between 1995 and 2010 is shown in Table 4-11. Between 1995 and 2010 the Study Area averaged approximately 52,000 residential units per year with 47% of this building occurring in the Inland Empire counties, 30% in Los Angeles County, 16% in Orange County, and the remaining construction occurring in Ventura and Imperial counties. RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 SocioEconomic Variables and Land Use May 9, 2012 4.18 Residential permit issuance grew significantly each year between 1995 and 2004, even during the early 2000s when the short tech bubble-related recession occurred. Permit issuance in the Study Area peaked in 2004 and 2005 with over 90,000 permits issued for two years in a row. During each of these two years over half the building permits issued were in Riverside and San Bernardino counties. The surge in housing production between 2002 and 2006, especially in Riverside and San Bernardino counties, was in large part attributable to favorable lending terms, most simply reflected in mortgage rates. After peaking in 1981, the average annual 30 -year mortgage rate trended downward until reaching a 30 year low in 2003 at under 5.5%. This borrowing environment made homes more affordable despite robust annual price increases during the late 1990’s through mid 2000’s. Table 4-11 Growth of Total Residential Building Permits in the Study Area Source: Construction Industry Research Board * 2010 Data through July only. Annual permit issuance began to decline significantly in 2007 and fell below the 15 -year average in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010. Before the residential production slow -down, many home owners’ monthly mortgage payments began to increase due to their variable rate mortgage structures. When the full impact of the recession was felt and the unemployment rate increased to 15%, many homes were no longer affordable for their owners. Overbuilding of new homes for sale coupled with the growing inventory of homes fo r re-sale increased inventories far in excess of demand, causing prices to fall. With many desperate sellers and Year Los Angeles Orange Riverside San Bernardino Ventura Imperial Total Percent Change from Previous Year 1995 8,405 8,300 6,946 3,953 2,166 497 30,267 - 1996 8,607 10,207 7,499 5,014 2,353 331 34,011 12% 1997 10,424 12,251 9,784 5,593 2,316 327 40,695 20% 1998 11,692 10,101 12,493 6,113 3,182 394 43,975 8% 1999 14,383 12,348 14,579 7,072 4,442 333 53,157 21% 2000 17,071 12,367 15,410 6,580 3,971 677 56,076 5% 2001 18,253 8,646 19,014 8,527 3,446 756 58,642 5% 2002 19,364 12,020 22,664 10,616 2,507 1,062 68,233 16% 2003 21,313 9,311 30,361 12,640 3,635 1,211 78,471 15% 2004 26,935 9,322 34,226 18,470 2,603 2,157 93,713 19% 2005 25,647 7,206 34,134 16,684 4,516 2,974 91,161 -3% 2006 26,348 8,371 25,211 13,872 2,461 1,850 78,113 -14% 2007 20,363 7,072 12,453 8,004 1,847 1,079 50,818 -35% 2008 13,704 3,159 5,919 3,182 842 464 27,270 -46% 2009 5,653 2,200 4,190 2,495 404 195 15,137 -44% 2010*4,435 1,452 2,913 1,089 341 52 10,282 -32% Total 252,597 134,333 257,796 129,904 41,032 14,359 830,021 N/A RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 SocioEconomic Variables and Land Use May 9, 2012 4.19 very few buyers, a flood of home foreclosures began to impact lender balance sheets and caused the credit markets to tighten. While certain areas, including the Study Area, were more adversely impacted than others, it’s important to note that this was a national phenomenon causing a national recession that has had a particularly hard impact on the Inland Empire due to the disproportionately l arge construction and transportation / distribution job sectors located there. New home production in many parts of the Study Area, but particularly in the Inland Empire, is currently stagnant and will remain so for several years until supply and demand come back into balance. However, the families that occupied the distressed houses or lost their jobs did not all simply leave. Despite financial burdens, most families remained in the Study Area, renting and living within reduced means, and will be there when the recession is over. As such, the number of households in the study area between 2007 and 2010 does not decline in a trend similar to jobs, though growth was certainly reduced during that time period. Trends in single and multi-family product types reflect the relative levels of maturity of each county, with more mature areas that are fully developed and space -constrained limited to higher density development. The split between single family detached and multifamily units built between 1995 and 2010 in the Study Area was approximately 70%/30% respectively, with over half of the total multifamily units in the Study Area built in Los Angeles County. Conversely, single family detached homes represented approximately 86% of the homes built in Riverside and San Bernardino counties, an area rich with undeveloped land. Orange County, which is running out of vacant land for development, falls between Los Angeles and the Inland Empire counties with approximately 60% of new homes built as detached unit s. RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 SocioEconomic Variables and Land Use May 9, 2012 4.20 Figure 4-10 Study Area Residential Building Permit Issuance, 2005 – 2010 Source: Construction Industry Research Board (CRIB) f 2010 Numbers are annualized first 7 months of 2010 actual CRIB data. Table 4-12 presents detailed annual residential building permit data from between 2005 and 2010. The table shows annualized data for the first seven months of 2010 that indicate a slight rebound from 2009; the lowest production year shown. Interestingly, Figure 4-10 shows a more gradual decline in multifamily unit permits in 2007 and 2008 relative to single family units. This, among other reasons, is likely a result of builders being unable to halt the production of a large multifamily project as quickly as detached unit project. In many cases developers carried multifamily projects forward but converted condominium projects to apartments, for which there remained a relatively healthy market. - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010fTotal Residential Building Permits IssuedYear Single Family Multi-Family Total RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 SocioEconomic Variables and Land Use May 9, 2012 4.21 Table 4-12 Annual Building Permits Issued in the 6 County Area, 2005 – 2010 Source: Construction Industry Research Board (CRIB) f 2010 Numbers are annualized first 7 months of 2010 actual CRIB data. 4.4 BASE YEAR 2010 ESTIMATES The California Economic Development Department (EDD) keeps data on actual historical at - place employment by county. These data, both annual and monthly through mid 2010, were used to establish an actual 2010 base year employment number for each county. These totals 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010f Los Angeles Single Family 11,911 10,097 7,509 3,539 2,131 2,412 Multi-Family 13,736 16,251 12,854 10,165 3,522 5,191 Total 25,647 26,348 20,363 13,704 5,653 7,603 Orange Single Family 4,058 3,735 2,182 1,295 1,376 1,606 Multi-Family 3,148 4,636 4,890 1,864 824 883 Total 7,206 8,371 7,072 3,159 2,200 2,489 Riverside Single Family 29,994 20,692 9,763 3,815 3,431 4,281 Multi-Family 4,140 4,519 2,690 2,104 759 713 Total 34,134 25,211 12,453 5,919 4,190 4,994 San Bernardino Single Family 15,305 12,599 6,239 1,981 1,441 1,301 Multi-Family 1,379 1,273 1,765 1,201 1,054 566 Total 16,684 13,872 8,004 3,182 2,495 1,867 Ventura Single Family 2,593 1,560 736 354 231 209 Multi-Family 1,923 901 1,111 488 173 375 Total 4,516 2,461 1,847 842 404 585 Imperial Single Family 2,722 1,631 670 233 183 89 Multi-Family 252 219 409 231 12 - Total 2,974 1,850 1,079 464 195 89 Total Study Area Single Family 66,583 50,314 27,099 11,217 8,793 9,898 Multi-Family 24,578 27,799 23,719 16,053 6,344 7,728 Total 91,161 78,113 50,818 27,270 15,137 17,626 Total Permits Issued (units) RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 SocioEconomic Variables and Land Use May 9, 2012 4.22 were adjusted upward to account for self employed persons not captured in standard employment count methods used by the State. The percentage increases to account for self employed, ranging from 8% to 10%, were derived from historical data between 1980 and 2005 as reported by Global Insight. Establishing current employment counts for 2010 was critical because the adopted forecasts from SCAG are several years old and therefore do not properly reflect the 2008 recession 6. Table 4-13 shows 2005 to 2010 county-level employment data and compares the SCAG forecasts with those developed by PB using actual data from EDD for the 5 -year period. The table shows that the 2008 recession resulted in 630,000 job losses in the Study Area between 2005 and 2010, and 1.2 million fewer jobs than were expected in the adopted SCAG forecasts. Table 4-13 2010 Base Year Total Jobs: EDD/PB vs. SCAG/OCP (thousands) Note: EDD/PB job counts include estimate of self-employed workers Table 4-14 shows the same comparison between the SCAG forecast and the EDD / PB forecast for households. While actual household growth in the Study Area was not as strong as predicted in the SCAG forecast, there was not as severe a difference as is outlined above for jobs. Between 2005 and 2010, the Study Area added approximately 194,000 households, over half of which were added to the Inland Empire counties. Table 4-14 2010 Base Year Households EDD/PB vs. SCAG/OCP (thousands) 6 WRCOG 2010 and OCP 2006 forecasts were combined with the SCAG data set which was approved in 2007. 2010 Change from 2005 CAGR 2010 Change from 2005 CAGR Los Angeles 4,394 4,550 155 0.7%4,082 -312 -1.5% Orange 1,616 1,755 139 1.7%1,461 -155 -2.0% Ventura 345 373 28 1.6%321 -24 -1.5% Imperial 58 73 15 4.8%59 1 0.3% Riverside 650 785 135 3.8%577 -73 -2.4% San Bernardino 704 810 106 2.8%633 -71 -2.1% Total Study Area 7,768 8,347 578 1.4%7,133 -635 -1.7% SCAG EDD / PB 2005 2010 Change from 2005 CAGR 2010 Change from 2005 CAGR Los Angeles 3,211 3,356 145 0.9%3,269 58 0.4% Orange 981 1,039 58 1.2%1,000 19 0.4% Ventura 260 275 15 1.1%269 9 0.7% Imperial 45 57 12 4.8%51 6 2.5% Riverside 612 721 108 3.3%678 66 2.1% San Bernardino 576 637 61 2.0%612 36 1.2% Total Study Area 5,686 6,086 400 1.4%5,880 194 0.7% SCAG EDD / PB RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 SocioEconomic Variables and Land Use May 9, 2012 4.23 4.5 EMPLOYMENT FORECASTS This section provides detailed information on the PB forecasts developed as inp uts to the RivTAM model for the SR 91 Express Lane Extension traffic and revenue forecasting effort. As outlined in the methodology section above, PB uses third party forecasts to assist in developing its long-term forecasts at the county-level. A presentation of these forecasts is provided first, along with commentary on current economic trends and expectations that resulted in the PB forecast. While household and population counts are somewhat standard across forecasting platforms, most of the forecasts reviewed have varying “definitions” of employment that are not directly comparable. As such, we offer the following terminology to help clarify the dialogue that follows:  Wage & Salary: A widely used definition of employment used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) which reports payroll employment counts based on insurance claims.  Proprietors: Persons who own businesses but are paid by distributions from business revenue, and are not part of the payroll.  Self Employed: Persons who are contract employees, operate businesses as individuals or partners and are therefore not part of company payrolls. May be some overlap with Proprietors. Because of the differences in employment definitions and when the individual forecasts were developed, compound annual growth rates (CAGR) are displayed in the data tables to better capture each forecast’s spirit. 4.5.1 Comparative Third Party Forecasts: Long-Term Global Insight Inc. Global Insight provides comprehensive economic and financial forecasts domestically and internationally. PB obtained Global Insight historical and forecast data from 1975 through 2035 at the county level for total employment, households and population. Historical employment data is from the establishment survey of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (“BLS”) Current Employment Statistics (“CES”) program, which reports non agricultural wage and salary employment. The main categories excluded from this program are military, proprietors, self employed and agricultural workers. Military employment is added into the total estimate presented herein which is obtained by Global Insight from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (“BEA”). The Global Insight employment forecast for the Study Area reports 6.7 million jobs in 2010 and forecasts employment to increase to 8.8 million jobs by 2035, a 1.09% compound annual RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 SocioEconomic Variables and Land Use May 9, 2012 4.24 growth rate. The forecast predicts the strongest growth to occur between 2010 and 20 15 at 1.80% followed by periods of lower growth ranging from 0.87% to 0.93%. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Caltrans provides long-term forecasts for various socio-economic variables. The primary data gathering source for employment is the California EDD Labor Market Information (LMI), and for households and population, the California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit. The Caltrans employment forecast for the five county area totals 7.3 million jobs in 2010 and forecasts employment to increase to 9.3 million jobs by 2030, a 1.22% compound annual growth rate. The forecast predicts the strongest growth to occur between 2010 and 2015 at 1.44% growth, tapering off over the last 15 years of the forecast period, reaching a low of 1.07% between 2025 and 2030. Caltrans does not provide 2035 forecasts in their projections. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) SCAG is the regional planning agency that collects and assembles economic data from other more local plan ning agencies, including the OCTA and WRCOG. WRCOG produces independent forecasts for Riverside County and similarly, The Orange County Projections Series, produced by the Center for Demographic Research at California State University (Fullerton), produces a forecast of Orange County land use for the OCTA. All of these agencies use a similar methodology to prepare their forecasts, beginning with projections of population, employment and occupied households at the county level with jurisdictional input and approval by their respective technical advisory committees. After a series of reviews by the agencies and member jurisdictions, the forecasts are compiled and disaggregated to smaller geographic areas based on observed market considerations, land capacity and local policy considerations. Each agency model uses a different geographic distribution method, so conversion tables must be used to join the data sets for use in the various agency models. The WRCOG data for Riverside County was produced in 20 10. The most recently approved OCTA series, OCP 2006, has a base year of 2003 and is currently incorporated in the SCAG RTP 2007 model. Woods and Poole (W&P) Woods and Poole provides independent economic and demographic projections through 2040. Woods and Poole employment is forecast in components using an establishment-based survey. This forecast is unique from the others as it includes self - employed workers (those with IRS Form 1099-MISC income) and farm employment. As a result of self-employed workers’ inclusion in the W&P forecast, this source has a much higher forecast of employment than the other sources. RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 SocioEconomic Variables and Land Use May 9, 2012 4.25 Table 4-15 shows each of the employment forecasts described above along with the PB forecast for the Study Area. The PB forecast of Study Area employment in 2010 (7.1 million) is 10% lower than the most recently adopted SCAG forecast, and 3% lower than the 2008 Caltrans forecast. Table 4-15 Comparisons of Long-Term Employment Projections (thousands) (1) Total non-farm employment. (2) Total wage and salary employment. Includes farm employment. (3) Includes farm employment, self-employed and proprieters. 4.5.2 Comparative Forecasts: Short-Term Some of the third party sources listed above also provided detailed annual forecasts for the near-term. This perspective is especially important because the timing of the economy’s recovery in the next five years will impact all future years of the forecast. Figure 4-11 compares the third party forecasts’ growth rates between 2005 and 2015 with the PB forecast. The exhibit shows the substantial job losses between 2008 and 2010 with job growth expected in 2011. However, the forecasts have different growth profiles in recovery. The Woods & Poole Employment 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Global Insight (1)6,596 7,217 7,555 7,892 8,253 8,615 Caltrans (2)6,812 7,418 7,965 8,540 9,074 9,540 SCAG (1)8,267 8,727 9,096 9,458 9,824 10,198 W&P (3)9,288 9,990 10,575 11,189 11,831 12,505 PB (3)7,133 7,601 8,061 8,460 8,799 9,114 2010 to 2015 2015 to 2020 2020 to 2025 2025 to 2030 2030 to 2035 2010 to 2035 Global Insight 621 338 336 361 362 2,019 Caltrans 606 547 575 534 466 2,728 SCAG 460 369 362 366 374 1,931 W&P 702 585 613 643 673 3,216 PB 468 460 398 339 315 1,980 Global Insight 124 68 67 72 72 81 Caltrans 121 109 115 107 93 109 SCAG 92 74 72 73 75 77 W&P 140 117 123 129 135 129 PB 94 92 80 68 63 79 Global Insight 1.82%0.92%0.87%0.90%0.86%1.07% Caltrans 1.72%1.43%1.40%1.22%1.01%1.36% SCAG 1.09%0.83%0.78%0.76%0.75%0.84% W&P 1.47%1.14%1.13%1.12%1.11%1.20% PB 1.28%1.18%0.97%0.79%0.71%0.98% Incremental Growth Average Annual Growth Compound Average Annual Growth Rate RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 SocioEconomic Variables and Land Use May 9, 2012 4.26 forecast (green line) expects a relatively sharp uptick in growth in 2011 followed by moderate growth in the following four years. The Global Insight and Caltrans f orecasts (blue and red lines, respectively) have similarly shaped growth projections with the growth rate peaking in 2012. The PB Forecast (purple line) reflects expectations for a gradual recovery that stretches over several years with no substantial “peak after the trough.” As discussed earlier, this “gradual” or “constrained” recovery will result from (among other things) real estate market distress that will limit construction industry activity for several years and limited small business growth stemming from the damage that mortgage defaults caused to the credit markets. Figure 4-11 Compound Annual Growth Rate Comparison of Short Term Employment Forecasts RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 SocioEconomic Variables and Land Use May 9, 2012 4.27 4.5.3 Study Area Employment Forecast Total employment growth in the Study Area between 2010 and 2035 is projected to be 1.98 million jobs or an average of approximately 80,000 jobs per year (0.98% CAGR). Table 4-16 breaks this growth down by county. Orange County is expected to see moderate growth, adding 20,000 jobs per year on average between 2010 and 2035. This is a 25% slower pace than the average annual increases of 25,650 that were seen between 1985 and 2005. This level of employment growth is consistent with access constraints (i.e. transportation, land costs, etc.) to the county and jurisdictional development and entitlement caps on potential development activity. RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 SocioEconomic Variables and Land Use May 9, 2012 4.28 Table 4-16 PB Employment Forecast by County (thousands) The Inland Empire will experience the highest growth in jobs with compound annual growth rates of 1.68% and 2.49% over the 25 year period for San Bernardino and Riverside counties, respectively. The Inland Empire counties are expected to add approximately 33,000 new jobs annually between 2010 and 2035. This is 13,000 more annually than the average annual growth experienced between 1990 and 2010 as stated in Table 4-8, above, though the 1990 to 2010 average includes the substantial job losses resulting from the 2008 recession with no Employment 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Imperial 59 66 76 84 90 95 Ventura 321 351 376 398 413 425 Los Angeles 4,082 4,267 4,396 4,488 4,550 4,601 Orange 1,461 1,594 1,706 1,799 1,884 1,966 San Bernardino 633 679 753 827 895 960 Riverside 577 645 755 864 966 1,067 Total Study Area 7,133 7,601 8,061 8,460 8,799 9,114 2010 to 2015 2015 to 2020 2020 to 2025 2025 to 2030 2030 to 2035 2010 to 2035 Imperial 7 9 8 6 5 36 Ventura 30 25 21 15 13 104 Los Angeles 185 130 92 62 51 520 Orange 132 112 93 85 81 504 San Bernardino 45 74 74 68 64 326 Riverside 68 110 110 102 101 490 Total Study Area 468 460 398 339 315 1,980 Imperial 1 2 2 1 1 1 Ventura 6 5 4 3 3 4 Los Angeles 37 26 18 12 10 21 Orange 26 22 19 17 16 20 San Bernardino 9 15 15 14 13 13 Riverside 14 22 22 20 20 20 Total Study Area 94 92 80 68 63 79 Imperial 2.40%2.70%2.00%1.50%1.00%1.92% Ventura 1.79%1.40%1.10%0.75%0.60%1.13% Los Angeles 0.89%0.60%0.41%0.27%0.23%0.48% Orange 1.75%1.37%1.07%0.93%0.85%1.19% San Bernardino 1.39%2.09%1.90%1.60%1.40%1.68% Riverside 2.25%3.20%2.75%2.25%2.00%2.49% Total Study Area 1.28%1.18%0.97%0.79%0.71%0.98 Incremental Growth Average Annual Growth Compound Average Annual Growth Rate RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 SocioEconomic Variables and Land Use May 9, 2012 4.29 accounting for recovery. Between 1990 and 2005, the Inland Empire counties averaged job growth of over 36,000 per year. Los Angeles County will add approximately 26,000 jobs per year, though it will grow at the slowest rate of the six counties in the Study Area, less than half a percent annually. Between 1990 and 2010, Los Angeles county job growth was cyclical but lost jobs on an annual average basis. With more diversity in its job base and major investments in transportation infrastructure, specifically transit, positive but moderate job growth is expected in the future. The shortage of developable land in Los Angeles County will limit the rate of job growth there, though it will continue to have the largest employment base in the region due to the established industries and national headquarters, airport and port facilities, location relative to the coast, and diverse housing stock. Developers will continue to seek out underutilized sites to redevelop into higher density properties, both residential and commercial. Transit oriented development around the rapidly developing transit system, as noted in the sidebar, is a relatively new trend in Los Angeles that will house a significant percentage of new development. Still, some Los Angeles County residents are expected to migrate east to Riverside or San Bernardino counties seeking lower costs of living. The strongest growth industries in Los Angeles are expected to be educational and professional services, as well as arts and entertainment. Orange County will see most of its long-term job growth in the same three categories as Los Angeles County but the fourth largest industry will be Finance, Investment, and Real Estate services (FIRE). Redevelopment of older residential and industrial prop erties in Orange County will be more geared towards new higher density residential space. Higher density office space will be developed in the medium and long-term, though there is a notable movement towards shared office space and working from home which will temper the demand for office space in Orange County and other parts of the Study Area. This trend and the significant inventory of vacant office space in Orange County will further constrain construction employment growth in the short to medium term. With relatively low real estate costs, lower wages, access to a growing international airport (Ontario), and available land for both commercial expansion and workforce housing options, certain types of businesses have blossomed in the Inland Empire or relocated there from more expensive coastal locations. Warehousing, manufacturing and distribution facilities have led Inland Empire job growth in the past decade as the ports in Los Angeles County created demand for major distribution facilities that co uld not be located near the ports due to high land costs. Because of the growth of population expected in the long -term, a more balanced mix of population serving (retail) employment is expected, though primary job growth will continue to be focused in the distribution, manufacturing, construction, and transportation sectors. RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 SocioEconomic Variables and Land Use May 9, 2012 4.30 Table 4-17 shows the PB forecast growth by county divided by each type of employment as defined in the RivTAM documentation. The top four employment categories in each county are highlighted, showing that while professional services, educational services, and tourism are expected to experience growth across the Study Area, each county has its own growth profile represented in the industries expecting moderate growth. As noted above, the Inland Empire counties expect higher than average retail, construction, and transportation jobs, while Orange County is expected to have a higher percentage of FIRE and other professional services jobs. Overall the Study Area’s five highest growth industries will be educational services, professional services, retail goods, arts & entertainment, and construction, accounting for 77% of growth during the Study Period. Table 4-17 Employment by Major Category (in thousands) Imperial Ventura Los Angeles Orange San Bernardino Riverside Total Study Area Agricultural 1,290 4,410 -2,100 1,550 1,630 -7,860 -1,080 Construction 1,090 5,420 22,730 29,490 23,420 66,840 148,990 Manufacturing 2,450 4,870 -46,640 9,790 18,450 19,830 8,750 Wholesale Goods 880 4,080 10,670 17,880 21,570 20,170 75,250 Retail Goods 5,150 9,760 40,320 34,060 47,160 90,940 227,390 Transportation 2,530 820 5,800 8,640 24,630 28,160 70,580 Information 280 3,010 42,700 10,960 1,920 10,650 69,520 FIRE 520 9,490 12,510 49,230 11,810 21,630 105,190 Professional 2,010 23,020 131,460 164,950 46,060 65,970 433,470 Educational 6,770 22,680 196,980 106,880 92,130 77,020 502,460 Arts & Entertainment 2,550 10,910 83,280 57,260 25,490 40,410 219,900 Other Services 840 2,410 9,320 9,580 6,870 22,280 51,300 Public Administration 9,460 3,030 12,780 4,190 5,110 33,720 68,290 Total Job Growth 35,820 103,910 519,810 504,460 326,250 489,760 1,980,010 Agricultural 3.6%4.2%-0.4%0.3%0.5%-1.6%-0.1% Construction 3.0%5.2%4.4%5.8%7.2%13.6%7.5% Manufacturing 6.8%4.7%-9.0%1.9%5.7%4.0%0.4% Wholesale Goods 2.5%3.9%2.1%3.5%6.6%4.1%3.8% Retail Goods 14.4%9.4%7.8%6.8%14.5%18.6%11.5% Transportation 7.1%0.8%1.1%1.7%7.5%5.7%3.6% Information 0.8%2.9%8.2%2.2%0.6%2.2%3.5% FIRE 1.5%9.1%2.4%9.8%3.6%4.4%5.3% Professional 5.6%22.2%25.3%32.7%14.1%13.5%21.9% Educational 18.9%21.8%37.9%21.2%28.2%15.7%25.4% Arts & Entertainment 7.1%10.5%16.0%11.4%7.8%8.3%11.1% Other Services 2.3%2.3%1.8%1.9%2.1%4.5%2.6% Public Administration 26.4%2.9%2.5%0.8%1.6%6.9%3.4% Total 100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0% Percent of Total for County RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 SocioEconomic Variables and Land Use May 9, 2012 4.31 4.6 HOUSEHOLD FORECAST 4.6.1 Study Area Comparative Forecasts As in the employment forecast section, information on third party forecasts examined by PB to help guide its long-term county-level forecasts is presented first, followed by details on the PB forecast. The same four third party forecasts, Global Insight, SCAG, Woods & Poole, and Caltrans, which were surveyed for employment, were also surveyed for household forecasting purposes. Table 4-18 compares the growth rates from each source with the PB forecast from 2010 to 2035. Table 4-18 Comparison of Long Term Households Projections (thousands) All of the forecasts reflect similar long-term annual growth rates over the Study Period, ranging from 0.79% to 1.02%. However, slight variation between five-year periods is apparent. For instance, the SCAG view is one of strong early growth that tapers off more substantially than Households 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Global Insight 5,854 6,173 6,494 6,790 7,078 7,366 Caltrans 5,879 6,106 6,381 6,655 6,912 7,162 SCAG 6,086 6,473 6,839 7,155 7,448 7,709 W&P 6,027 6,410 6,786 7,140 7,468 7,770 PB 5,880 6,082 6,344 6,594 6,825 7,044 2010 to 2015 2015 to 2020 2020 to 2025 2025 to 2030 2030 to 2035 2010 to 2035 Global Insight 319 321 296 288 288 1,512 Caltrans 227 275 275 257 250 1,283 SCAG 387 366 316 293 261 1,623 W&P 382 376 355 328 303 1,743 PB 202 262 250 231 219 1,165 Global Insight 64 64 59 58 58 60 Caltrans 45 55 55 51 50 51 SCAG 77 73 63 59 52 65 W&P 76 75 71 66 61 70 PB 40 52 50 46 44 47 Global Insight 1.07%1.02%0.90%0.83%0.80%0.92% Caltrans 0.76%0.88%0.85%0.76%0.71%0.79% SCAG 1.24%1.11%0.91%0.81%0.69%0.95% W&P 1.24%1.15%1.02%0.90%0.80%1.02% PB 0.68%0.85%0.78%0.69%0.63%0.73% Incremental Growth Average Annual Growth Compound Average Annual Growth Rate RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 SocioEconomic Variables and Land Use May 9, 2012 4.32 the other forecasts. Woods and Poole expects a similar recovery to that envisioned by SCAG, but with sustained growth in the latter part of the forecast. Global Insight and Caltrans both have relatively flat trajectories in their household growth forecasts, with Caltrans barely deviating from its long-term average growth rate. Figure 4-12 further illustrates this data comparison, showing the PB Forecast expectations for a slow recovery of household growth in the next five years, and the fastest growth of the Forecast Period occurring between 2015 and 2020. Figure 4-12 Comparison of Long-Term Household Growth Rates The current recession was caused in large part by the overbuilding of residential real estate and speculative lending practices that together resulted in large inventories of empty new and resold homes. As is typical with economic models, when inventories build and demand declines, prices fall, as has happened in the Study Area over the past th ree years. The median single family home price in Riverside County increased substantially in the early and mid 2000s to a peak of over $400,000 in 2006 but declined sharply between 2007 and 2009 as a result of the 2008 recession. Home prices across the Study Area behaved similarly, though the most substantial percentage declines were realized in the Inland Empire, as shown in Table 4-19. 0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.6% 0.8% 1.0% 1.2% 1.4% 2010 to 2015 2015 to 2020 2020 to 2025 2025 to 2030 2030 to 2035Compound Average Annual Growth RateTime Period Global Insight Caltrans SCAG W&P PB RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 SocioEconomic Variables and Land Use May 9, 2012 4.33 Table 4-19 Historical Study Area Median Home Prices Source: California Association of Realtors, PB Analysis f—Put definition of f notation. A chain of events must unfold before the Study Area housing market (and real estate market as a whole) gets back to a relatively balanced state of supply and demand. Many Study Area jobs are dependent on the construction and real estate indust ries. These sectors of the economy will be a drag on the overall recovery because home construction and related industry growth will not restart in earnest until people buy up the inventory of vacant houses. Because credit is tight and many people are still unemployed, it is expected to take 2 to 4 years for these inventories to be absorbed. Many families in the Study Area have been, and will continue to be, priced out of the Orange County market and are expected to seek more affordable living arrange ments in other places such as the Inland Empire. This trend is expected to continue despite the price moderation that began in the 2007-2009 period for all counties. 4.6.2 Study Area Housing Unit Forecasts Table 4-20 presents the PB forecast of households. The Study Area is expected to add close to 1.17 million new households between 2010 and 2035, a compound annual rate of 0.73% over the Forecast Period. Growth is expected to be split between 663,300 single family dwelling units and 550,700 multifamily units. This mix reflects slowing of detached unit growth in Los Angeles and Orange counties, which will be replaced with a mix of higher density and infill residential development. Continued strong development growth in the Inland Empire counties is expected in the medium and long-term. Median Price 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011(f) Los Angeles 487,000 523,000 550,000 470,000 305,000 332,000 342,000 Orange 595,000 643,000 644,000 628,000 423,000 481,000 502,000 Riverside 389,000 410,000 400,000 309,000 179,000 185,000 190,000 San Bernardino 325,000 365,000 355,000 283,000 155,000 146,000 160,000 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2005-2011 Los Angeles 7%5%-15%-35%9%3%-6% Orange 8%0%-2%-33%14%4%-3% Riverside 5%-2%-23%-42%3%3%-11% San Bernardino 12%-3%-20%-45%-6%10%-11% Growth Rate RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 SocioEconomic Variables and Land Use May 9, 2012 4.34 Table 4-20 PB Household Forecast by County (thousands) About 52% of the new dwelling units forecast to be built in the Study Area will be located in the Inland Empire. These 615,000 new units represent close to 2.0 million people. Workers not employed in San Bernardino or Riverside counties will face heavy traffic while commuting to job centers outside the Inland Empire, choosing to commute in exchange for less expensive housing. Local development experts suggest that 1.5 to 2 hours is the maximum that commuters will regularly drive each way to get to work. This limits the area in the Inland Empire that can reasonably serve the Orange County job markets to the western portions in the HOUSEHOLDS 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Imperial 51 58 66 73 78 82 Ventura 269 284 297 308 318 328 Los Angeles 3,269 3,332 3,399 3,465 3,527 3,581 Orange 1,000 1,031 1,076 1,103 1,125 1,148 San Bernardino 612 646 699 762 818 872 Riverside 678 732 808 884 959 1,033 Total Study Area 5,880 6,082 6,344 6,594 6,825 7,044 2010 to 2015 2015 to 2020 2020 to 2025 2025 to 2030 2030 to 2035 2010 to 2035 Imperial 6 8 7 6 4 31 Ventura 15 13 11 10 10 59 Los Angeles 63 67 66 62 54 312 Orange 31 45 27 22 23 148 San Bernardino 33 53 64 56 54 260 Riverside 54 76 75 75 74 355 Total Study Area 202 262 250 231 219 1,165 Imperial 1.3 1.6 1.4 1.1 0.8 1.2 Ventura 2.9 2.6 2.3 2 2.1 2.4 Los Angeles 12.5 13.4 13.2 12.4 10.8 12.5 Orange 6.2 8.9 5.4 4.4 4.5 5.9 San Bernardino 6.7 10.6 12.7 11.1 10.7 10.4 Riverside 10.8 15.2 15.1 15.1 14.8 14.2 Total Study Area 40.4 52.4 50.1 46.2 43.8 46.6 Imperial 2.40%2.70%2.00%1.50%1.00%1.92% Ventura 1.06%0.90%0.75%0.65%0.65%0.80% Los Angeles 0.38%0.40%0.38%0.35%0.30%0.36% Orange 0.61%0.85%0.50%0.40%0.40%0.55% San Bernardino 1.07%1.59%1.76%1.42%1.28%1.42% Riverside 1.55%2.00%1.80%1.65%1.50%1.70% Total Study Area 0.68%0.85%0.78%0.69%0.63%0.73% Incremental Growth Average Annual Growth Compound Average Annual Growth Rate RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 SocioEconomic Variables and Land Use May 9, 2012 4.35 vicinity of Corona, Chino Hills, Ontario, and Riverside, depending on the use of tolled lanes. For instance, the drive from Irvine to Corona takes about 35 minutes using the toll roads or during low traffic times of the day, but during rush hour, this drive takes about 1 hour and 50 minutes. Faced with this tradeoff, many Orange County workers, especially those with higher incomes, will continue to seek housing options in Orange County, despite the higher cost. Orange and Ventura counties will grow at compound annual rates of 0.6% and 0.8%, respectively during the Study Period, though the product mixes of each county will be different. Because of the historic imbalance between residential and non-residential property development in Orange County, home prices have been driven up, as discussed above. This, coupled with the shortage of developable land in Orange County, will cause developers to build more multifamily structures and smaller detached units. Ventura County does not have the same constraints as Orange County and will see the majority of new residential development in single family structures. Following this continuum, Los Angeles County, the most developed of the six Study Area counties, should see the vast majority of the 312,000 dwelling units forecast to be built there between 2010 and 2035 in high density multifamily structures, generally at infill and redevelopment sites. 4.6.3 Study Area Median Household Income Forecasts Median household incomes for Study Area counties were calculated using the Global Insight median household income and Consumer Price Index (CPI) forecasts. PB deflated the median household income forecasts using the CPI forecast to establish a forecast of real media n household income growth by county. These growth rates were then applied to the 2005 TAZ - level median household income data from SCAG to arrive at new projections for median household income. Table 4-21 provides the county-level median household income forecast including growth rates applied to each year in the forecast period. RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 SocioEconomic Variables and Land Use May 9, 2012 4.36 Table 4-21 PB Median Household Income Forecast (Nominal Dollars) The table shows that median household income growth was relatively minimal (or negative) between 2005 and 2010 due to the 2008 recession but is expected to recover in the 2010 to 2020 period with 1.5% to 2% annual growth, depending on the county. Overall the Inland Empire is expected to see 1.4% annual real income growth while most of the other counties within the Study Area will experience slightly higher growth at 1.8%. 4.7 KEY DEVELOPMENTS IN THE STUDY AREA A critical element of the PB forecasting effort is to develop small area forecasts for groups of TAZs containing developments that will most directly impact traffic on SR-91. This is done by reviewing specific plans and interviewing planning staff and devel opers of properties to collect the most recent data available on how and when projects will evolve. Guidance from previous land use work performed by PB was combined with information acquired through current interviews and project plans to adjust TAZ-level job and household counts relative to those programmed in the base data. Jobs and households were adjusted downward in many of the TAZs representing major projects such as the Preserve, the New Model Colony, the Great Park, Tustin Legacy, and several Irvine Company projects as these had not kept pace with the expectations reflected in the base data. PB conducted field research in Riverside, San Bernardino, and Orange counties. Using these data, Focus Areas, representing projects, groups of projects or potential redevelopment areas were identified, though the data obtained for each Focus Area varied significantly. In some cases, data were complete and up to date while in other cases data were scarce. To further categorize the review process, the following five examples are offered to characterize the materials produced from our field research. 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Los Angeles 42,640 43,990 48,230 53,290 58,350 63,050 67,950 Orange 54,270 54,810 60,110 66,500 72,710 78,450 85,070 Riverside / San Bernardino 41,760 40,400 43,530 47,360 50,880 54,060 57,630 Ventura 55,010 56,820 62,380 69,400 76,000 82,200 89,360 Imperial 29,230 29,620 31,040 33,510 35,930 37,420 39,050 2005-2010 2010-2015 2015-2020 2020-2025 2025-2030 2030-2035 2010-2035 Los Angeles 0.60%1.90%2.00%1.80%1.60%1.50%1.80% Orange 0.20%1.90%2.00%1.80%1.50%1.60%1.80% Riverside / San Bernardino -0.70%1.50%1.70%1.40%1.20%1.30%1.40% Ventura 0.60%1.90%2.20%1.80%1.60%1.70%1.80% Imperial 0.30%0.90%1.50%1.40%0.80%0.90%1.10% Real Growth Rate RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 SocioEconomic Variables and Land Use May 9, 2012 4.37  Actual Specific Plans – In some cases actual development plans (quantities and types of development) by project area or TAZ were provided by developers along with expected timing of construction. This was the goal of each interview but few projects had this level of data available.  Partial or Dated Plans – For many of the projects surveyed, especially residential projects that had to some degree been put on hold due to the market downturn, current plans were not available. Rather, estimates of build-out and locations were the best data available and some reliance on multiple sources and professional judgment was required.  Professional Judgment – In some cases, no current development plans were available for parcels that, because of their location and eligibility for development, were expected to be developed in the more distant future. In these cases, the MPO forecasts for the underlying TAZs were considered and in some instances modified based on professional judgment alone.  MPO Forecast Adoption – As with most of the TAZs in the Study Area, PB adopted the development allocations of some Focus Areas. In many cases, the development plans matched the data obtained in the field. However, there were instances where projects were planned or proposed but because limited information was available, no confirmation of the MPO’s accuracy could be obtained. If the forecasts for these areas appeared reasonable, they were not adjusted.  Redevelopment Areas – In the long-term, certain areas of Orange County that currently contain older, lower density industrial or commercial space are expected to be redeveloped as the owners of that land move their remaining operations to lower cost locations. These areas are anticipated to accommodate growth in jobs and households, after the remaining vacant and developable land is absorbed. Development scenarios were calculated for these areas based on professional judgment and allocated in the later years of the forecasts accordingly to help avoid development being allocated where there was clearly no capacity. Assumptions for redevelopment participation, current FAR, future FAR, and development mix were applied to yield a reasonable estimate of additional jobs and households that could develop, and were generally programmed between 2025 and 2035. Considering the levels of development review outlined above, details of certain Focus Areas are presented in the following sections. These project descriptions present the mo st probable project outcomes given the available data and PB’s understanding of development economics in the Study Area. While some of the Focus Area projects are ongoing, many have been put on hold for the past two to four years and are not expected to re -engage until late 2011, 2012 or RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 SocioEconomic Variables and Land Use May 9, 2012 4.38 later. In most cases, overall development quantities have not changed, though the phasing of the projects and specific products built will be dictated by evolving market conditions. 4.7.1 Inland Empire Projects As noted above, the Inland Empire is where the majority of SR 91 traffic will originate, therefore the locations and timing of residential projects located there is a critical element in measuring the traffic levels on the express lanes. The most attractive residential sites are expected to be those that are closest to the SR 91 corridor and Orange County, which would provide the shortest commute for people traveling to the work centers there. In our field research, PB focused on the projects that would be built in this area and have identified some of the major projects on the map in Figure 4-13 and the paragraphs that follow. Figure 4-13 Map of Inland Empire Developments Ontario Airport Development Chino Hills Industrial College Park The New Model Colony The Preserve Corona Industrial Development To: Canyon Crossing and March Air Force Base Development RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 SocioEconomic Variables and Land Use May 9, 2012 4.39 Corona Industrial & Redevelopment: While most of the City of Corona is built to capacity, there are a few parcels along I-15, south of SR 91, that remain for infill development. Many of these sites had been slated for development in the past decade but plans were abandoned at the outset of the 2008 recession. A variety of uses fit theses parcels which are positioned close to I-15, but local development experts suggest that the most likely uses are small scale industrial development or flex business parks. Other areas on the north side of Corona along Main Street and Hamner Avenue are ripe for redevelopment, which is expected to occur in the latter portion of the Study Period. Redevelopment opportunities also exist, sporadically, along SR 91 in the City of Riverside. March Air Force Base: March AFB, located along I-215 in Riverside County, is being redeveloped into a variety of land uses incluing industrial and warehouse space, residential space, and medical / hospital related space. The base has an enormous capacity for development but its location, roughly 20 miles east of Corona, makes it less attractive than other areas on the western borders of the Inland Empire. Our expectation is that very large warehouse and distribution centers will be developed there in the short and medium term due to the vast amount of available space. Residential and other commercial uses will be developed slowly over time after more attractive locations are absorbed. Over 20,000 new employees are expected to be located there during the Study Period with the majority of this development occurring after 2020. Canyon Crossing: Canyon Crossing refers to a collection of industrial and retail projects north of March Air Force Base along I-215. Near the Moreno Valley Mall, there are several large parcels remaining for development into entertainment or office uses. Approximately 3,000 additional employees and 800 households are expected to be developed in this area, just south and east of the city of Riverside. Chino Hills Industrial: In the City of Chino Hills, several large industrially-zoned parcels exist and will be developed over the next 5 to 15 years with space lar ge enough to house over 2,400 additional employees. College Park: College Park, located in the southeast portion of the City of Chino near the Chino Airport, will be the location of about 1,700 new households that will have very good access to SR 91 via SR 71. These homes are expected to be built between 2015 and 2025. No non - residential development is part of this project. The Preserve: The Preserve is a partially constructed development south of the Chino Airport and north of Pine Avenue in San Bernardino County. Like College Park, this development is in an attractive location relative to Orange County access and will be one of the first large developments in the Inland Empire to restart once the 2008 recession recovery begins in earnest. The remaining portion of the project includes 6,500 households and non-residential space to house 9,000 employees which will be built between 2015 and 2030. RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 SocioEconomic Variables and Land Use May 9, 2012 4.40 The New Model Colony: The New Model Colony in San Bernardino County is an 8,200 acre area south of Ontario near the Riverside County line that is planned for 9 million new square feet of non-residential development and over 30,000 new dwelling units. This space is expected to house approximately 21,000 new jobs. This project is well located but the scale of development is too large to complete within the Study Period. By 2035, approximately 14,000 new employees and about 25,000 new households are expected. Ontario Airport Environs: The area north of the Ontario Airport is slated for heavy development during the Study Period. This area has the highest likelihood of becoming an office center due to its proximity to the airport, highway access to Los Angeles and Orange Counties, the significant selection of workforce and executive housing options and its central location in the developed portion of the Inland Empire. Development plans for this area have been developed by the City of Ontario but we feel it is unlikely that the area will be built to capacity by the end of the Study Period. We have programmed 19,000 new jobs and 6,800 households to be developed in this area by 2035. 4.7.2 Orange County Projects The northern half of Orange County is largely built to its current zoning capacity. Most new development will take place in the southern portion of Orange County, which has few large vacant parcels left to develop. However, those areas that are still available for large scale development are located within a relatively close proximity to SR 91 and the highways that feed it. As such, these developments will increase traffic on the SR 91 Express Lanes, especially the non-residential developments which many commuters will seek to access from Inland Empire residential areas. The map in Figure 4-14 shows some of the major projects which are described in the paragraphs that follow. RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 SocioEconomic Variables and Land Use May 9, 2012 4.41 Figure 4-14 Map of Orange County Developments The Irvine Company (TIC) Spectrum 5: TIC has several projects planned for the area southwest of the interchange between Interstates 405 and 5, including the Planning Areas (PA) they’ve designated as PA 18, PA 34 and PA 39. This area, which was mostly vacant or used for agricultural and recreational purposes, has excellent highway exposure and is intended for a mix of residential, office, and commercial development. Irvine Company representatives expect just over 4,000 homes to develop in these areas between 2015 and 2030. Non - residential development to house approximately 2,000 additional employees will be developed there between 2020 and 2035. John Wayne Airport Area: The area to the south and east of John Wayne Airport is known as the Irvine Business Complex (IBC) and includ es the TIC PAs 23, 29, and 36. Over the past few decades the IBC has developed into a major center for business, containing approximately 75,000 employees. This approximately 950-acre area is expected to add close to 20,000 new jobs by 2035, which will be housed in a mixture of high density office buildings redeveloped Anaheim Stadium Area Planning Area 1 Mountain Park Northwood/ Woodbury Portola Springs Spectrum Entertainment Heritage Fields Spectrum 5 Baker Ranch/ Nakase Nursery Rancho Mission Viejo John Wayne Airport Development/ IBC RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 SocioEconomic Variables and Land Use May 9, 2012 4.42 from low density light industrial structures and a variety of infill opportunities. Additionally, as many as 4,000 high density residential units can be expected to be built in this area during the Study Period. Mountain Park: To the east of the SR 91/SR 241 interchange is a residential project called Mountain Park. The development plans for this area have been scaled down slightly from the Irvine Company’s previous estimate to approximately 2,500 single family homes, with so me multi-family development. Virtually all employment planned for the area has been removed from the plans. Baker Ranch & Nakase Nursary: Baker Ranch is located to the south of SR 241 in the vicinity of Bake Parkway. Just south of Baker Ranch is a large nursery that is expected to be developed into commercial uses at some point during the study period. Though no development plans are available for these areas, their location makes them prime for development of both residential and non-residential land uses. Together PB expects these areas to house approximately 5,000 jobs and 300 to 500 homes, though the majority of this development has been delayed until the end of the Study Period. Portola Springs: Surrounding SR 241 north of the Great Park is a large area that is expected to add both jobs and households during the Study Period. This area (TIC PA 6) is somewhat constrained in its expansion prospects because of the hilly terrain, especially to the east. Despite its geographic challenges, it is expected to expand to hold close to 4,000 additional households and 600,000 square feet of commercial and office development over the Study Period. Rancho Mission Viejo: Rancho Mission Viejo is a 23,000-acre area of Unincorporated Orange County approximately between the southern border of Rancho Santa Margarita and the Orange County/San Diego County border. Rancho Mission Viejo is approximately five miles due south of where SR 241 ends. Rancho Mission Viejo is planned for close to 5.0 million square feet of non-residential development with a considerable residential component as well. The PB forecast incorporates approximately 13,100 jobs by 2035. Based on conversations with Rancho Mission Viejo planners, the residential plan for the ranch is scaled at 14,000 units, about half single family and half multifamily. As many as 6,000 dwelling units will be in age qualified portions of the development. Planning Area 1: PA 1 is located on an unincorporated portion of Orange County, east of the intersection of SR 261 and north of Portola Parkway. This Irvine Company project is planned for a build-out of 3,900 homes by 2035. RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 SocioEconomic Variables and Land Use May 9, 2012 4.43 Northwood / Woodbury: To the east of where SR 261 and Interstate 5 intersect (PAs 5, 8 and 9), a collection of large Irvine Company projects are under development. Some of the only successful residential developments in Orange County right now are located in this area. This area will be developed with approximately 9,000 new dwelling units and a mix of commercial space that will house thousands of employees. The development program is expected to continue through 2035, though the non-residential portion is not expected to gain momentum until after 2020. Tustin Legacy Project: To the east of where SR 261 ends is the former Tustin Marine Base. The 1,600-acre Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin closed in 1999 and the City of Tustin is the lead local redevelopment authority. The specific reuse plan calls for a mix of low, medium and medium-high density residential development totaling approximately 2,100 dwelling units and 6.7 million square feet of non residential space, though there are other projects being developed around the fringe of the former air base. The Tustin Legacy project is one of the largest development projects in Orange County and, especially due to its central location, will have a significant impact on SR 91 traffic. Complete build-out of the Legacy Project is expected to take over 25 years. By the end of the Study Period, the area will house over 16,000 employees and several thousand households. 200 acres of land has been set aside for schools and parks. Heritage Fields: The former MCAS El Toro (now a Five Point Communities project called Heritage Fields) is located on the northeast side of I-5, where I-405 veers off to the west. Heritage Fields has been annexed by the City of Irvine for development into the “Great Park” which will add approximately 5,000 homes, 1.2 million square feet of non -residential space, and provide 4,000 acres of open space. This development is in addition to recreational and educational development that will be located at the Great Park. Developers expect to begin construction in 2012 with the first residential units being available in 2013. Non-residential development will follow. The project is expected to take at least 15 years to complete. Spectrum Entertainment: In the triangle formed by SR 133, Interstate 405 and Interstate 5 is a regional mall, a collection of office buildings, and some new rental resid ential development (PA 33). This area has several sizable vacant parcels that are planned for commercial building by various parties, including the Irvine Company. This development is underway and is expected to add 3,600 employees and as much as 1.8 mil lion square feet of office space. Future non- residential development in neighboring PAs 31, 13, and 12 to the northwest will house an additional 15,000 employees. RIVERSIDE COUNTY 91 5-1 5.0 Travel Demand Model The objective of the travel demand modeling process was the creation of a forecasting process that utilizes the best available data and modeling tools to estimate demand for the extension of the 91 Express Lanes into Riverside County. In preparation for model development and calibration, Stantec evaluated the various travel demand models available in the Southern California region and obtained extensive traffic, highway network and socioeconomic data for model input. 5.1 MODEL EVALUATION At the start of this project, three models whose geographic scope covered the Orange/Riverside County region in Southern California were evaluated for their appropriateness, robustness and accuracy for investment grade assessments: Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM) v3.3; Riverside County Traffic Analysis Model (RivTAM) in Tranplan; and Riverside County Traffic Analysis Model (RivTAM) in TransCAD. Evaluation focused on recent development and calibration efforts, the geographic extents of the roadway networks, the detail reflected by the traffic analysis zone structure and the level of trip purpose and vehicle class stratification carried through the modeling steps. Table 5-1 on the following page details the findings of the evaluation of each model. The RivTAM/TransCAD was deemed the most appropriate base on which to build a robust model for developing traffic and revenue forecasts for the extension of the 91 Express Lanes into Riverside County. This model is the most recently developed and exhibits the most comprehensive and sophisticated modeling in the Southern California region. Additionally, the model is appropriately focused on the western, more densely populated portion of Riv erside County, the location of this project’s study corridor. Even so, some aspects of the model warranted additional refinement to build an investment grade forecasting model that satisfies the unique requirements of the project. It was determined that the model should be enhanced with the development of an intermediate forecast year with appropriate inputs, the integration of a toll diversion curve into the traffic assignment model, refinements to the roadway networks, and additional calibration and validation specifically focused on the project corridor. The enhanced model, as presented in this report, was subsequently d eemed fit for the purpose of predicting future demand for the extension of the 91 Express Lanes into Riverside County. RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Travel Demand Model May 9, 2012 5-2 Table 5-1 Model Evaluation Summary Criterion OCTAM 3.3 RivTAM/Tranplan RivTAM/TransCAD Most Recent Development Year 2009 2007 2009 Time of Day Capabilities 4 assignment periods: AM peak, midday, PM peak, night 4 assignment periods: AM peak, midday, PM peak, night 4 assignment periods: AM peak, midday, PM peak, night Vehicle Class Stratification SOV, HOV2, HOV3+ SOV, HOV2, HOV3+ SOV, HOV2, HOV3+ Toll Diversion Capabilities Toll/free diversion is a nest within mode choice; toll and free trips are assigned separately Toll/free diversion is a nest within mode choice; toll and free trips are assigned separately None (4) Software Platform Tranplan 9.1 (with some Fortran) Tranplan 9.1 (with some Fortran) TransCAD 5.0 Trip Purposes within Trip Generation (1) HBWD, HBWS, HBU, SCH, HBS, HBSR, HBO, OBO, WBO, TRK, EXT HBWD, HBWS, HBU, SCH, HBS, HBSR, HBO, OBO, WBO, TRK, EXT HBWD, HBWS, HBSC, HBCU, HBSH, HBSR, HBSP, HBO, WBO, OBO, TRK, EXT (3) Separate Truck Trip Purpose Only in trip generation Only in trip generation In trip generation, distribution and assignment Geographic Extents 5 SCAG counties 5 SCAG counties plus northern San Diego County 5 SCAG counties plus Imperial County, includes Eastern portions of San Bernardino & Riverside Counties Zone System 3025 zones; 130 in Riverside County 4694 zones; 612 in Riverside County 5616 zones; 1807 in Riverside County Forecast Year Input Data 2005, 2035 (2) 2000, 2015, 2030 2007/2008, 2035 Stantec Experience Extensive Effectively same as OCTAM In Progress Notes: (1) HBWD = Home-Based Work Direct trips (travel directly between home and work with no intermediate stop), HBWS = Home -Based Work Strategic trips (travel to an intermediate stop between home and work). HBWD and HBWS are stratified by 3 household income levels . HBSC = Home-Based School, HBCU = Home-Based College/University, HBS = Home-Based Shopping, HBSR = Home-Based Social/Recreational, HBSP = Home-Based Serving Passenger, HBO = Home-Based Other, OBO = Non-Home-Based Other-Based Other, WBO = Non-Home-Based Work-Based Other, TRK = Trucks (Light, Medium and Heavy), EXT = External. In OCTAM and RivTAM/Tranplan, TRK trips are not carried forward into distribution or assi gnment. (2) Stantec has previously estimated input data for 2010 and 2020. (3) Includes sub-model for seasonal travel in Coachella Valley area. (4) Network has a Toll field used in a generalized cost calculation during assignment, but no toll/free path split is done in mod e choice or assignment. RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Travel Demand Model May 9, 2012 5.3 5.2 MODEL STRUCTURE AND PROCESS With the use of the RivTAM modeling platform, the regional travel demand modeling process for this project is structured to leverage both the regionally focused planning procedures developed by Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and the Riverside County focused planning procedures developed by Riverside County Transportation and Land Management Agency (RCTLMA). The model is based on the conventional four-step approach to travel demand forecasting, which estimates person-trips generated by land use in each zone, distributes these trips between zones, splits the trips among available modes of transportation, and then assigns automobile trips to the highway network. The process is then repeated (with each iteration utilizing estimated speeds from the previous iteration) until the difference between subsequent assignments is negligible. This outcome is generally referred to as a state of network equilibrium. In the RivTAM model, this standard trip generation to traffic assignment “loop” is executed five times so that input speeds for trip distribution are in reasonable agreement with the highway speeds output from traffic assignment. For use in this project, the RivTAM model was used specifically to predict vehicular traffic within the project corridor for a variety of analysis years and time periods. The base model year for this project is 2010 and the forecast model years are 2020 and 2035. The inputs to the base model are developed to represent actual 2010 conditions. Inputs for the forecast year models are based on assumptions and estimates of future roadway improvements, changes in land use and other socioeconomic inputs, as well as other relevant parameters. For each model year, four specific time periods are modeled, representing peak period conditions as well as midday and night conditions. The hours included in each of these periods are as follows:  AM Peak Period: 6:00 AM – 9:00 AM  Midday Period: 9:00 AM – 3:00 PM  PM Peak Period: 3:00 PM – 7:00 PM  Night Period: 7:00 PM – 6:00 AM For each of these periods vehicle trips for several trip purposes and vehicle occupancy levels are estimated along with several groups of commercial vehicle types. The trip purpose categories provided by the model are as follows: • Home-Based Work Direct (HBWD) • Home-Based Work Strategic o Home-Based Intermediate (HBWS-HBI) o Intermediate-Based Work (HBWS-IBW) • Home-Based School (HBSC) • Home-Based College/University (HBCU) • Home-Based Shopping (HBSH) • Home-Based Serving-Passenger (HBSP) • Home-Based Other (HBO) • Work-Based Other (WBO) RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Travel Demand Model May 9, 2012 5.4 • Other-Based Other (OBO) For each of the trip purposes above, trips are further stratified by auto occupancy categories: • SOV • HOV2 • HOV3+ Additional vehicle trip types estimated (or directly input into) by the model include: • Airport trips (stratified by the auto occupancy categories above) • Truck trips (stratified by Light, Medium, and Heavy) • Port Trips (stratified by Autos, Bobtails, Chassis, and Containers) 5.3 TOLL DIVERSION MODEL The RivTAM model implements tolls as a component of the generalized cost function, utilizing a toll-based time penalty on toll roads along with an estimated value of time to reflect the additional cost of tolled facilities in minutes. Additionally, tolled facilities in the RivTAM model are stratified by only two vehicle occupancy classes, namely single occupancy and HOV2+. Because the extension of the 91 Express Lanes into Riverside County will be most attractive during the peak commuting periods, it was desired to stratify the toll model by trip purpose, as well as represent the tolling of SOV, HOV2, and HOV3+ vehicle classes separately. To improve the modeling of driver responses and provide full stratification by vehicle occupancy class, a toll diversion assignment model was added to the RivTAM model. The toll diversion model adopted for this project is based on a toll diversion modeling process utilizing a logit-based route choice model embedded within an equilibrium traffic assignment routine to calculate the percentage of tolled trips for a given origin/destination interchange and can be stratified as necessary. The original model was developed in 2001 for several trip purposes using stated preference data. Since its initial development, the model has been refined as it has been calibrated and applied successfully for tolling projects in other regions throughout the United States, including projects in Delaware, California, Texas, and Virginia. The structure of the toll diversion model is defined as follows: Toll Share = 1 / (1 + eU) Toll Share = Probability of selecting a toll road e = Natural Logarithm U = “Utility” of Toll Route a * (TimeTR-TimeFR) + b * Cost TimeTR = Toll road travel time in minutes TimeFR = Nontoll road travel time in minutes Cost = Toll in dollars a,b = Coefficients RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Travel Demand Model May 9, 2012 5.5 Figure 5-1 shows the general structure of the enhanced model, including the addition of the toll diversion assignment model. Figure 5-1 Model Structure with Toll Diversion Assignment Model. For the toll diversion assignment model, the detailed trip purposes carried through the RivTAM model were aggregated to four trip purposes, each representing distinct values of time and route choice behaviors: • Home-Based Work (HBW) • Home-Based Other (HBO) • Non-Home Based (NHB) • Truck (TRK) Roadway Network Socioeconomic Inputs Other Model inputs RivTAM Model in TransCAD (Toll Time Penalty) Aggregated Vehicle Trip Tables by Time Period SOV, HOV2, HOV3+ SOV, HOV2, HOV3+ SOV, HOV2, HOV3+ HBW Trips HBO Trips NHB Trips TRK Trips Roadway Network Toll Diversion Inputs Equilibrium Assignment with Toll Diversion Non-Toll Skims Toll Skims Equilibrium Assignment Iterations Toll Diversion Model Equilibrium Traffic Assignment RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Travel Demand Model May 9, 2012 5.6 Stantec has developed and refined toll diversion coefficients in the Southern California region as part of multiple studies throughout the past ten years. Initial coefficients from the toll diversion process have been refined based on regional income data and revealed preference data on the existing toll roads in the Southern California region. Table 5-2 summarizes the coefficients utilized for this study. Table 5-2 Toll Diversion Coefficients Trip Purpose a, time coeff (minutes) b, toll coeff (dollars) VOT ( 1989$/hour) HBW -0.100 -0.5832 $10.29 HBO -0.100 -0.7779 $7.71 NHB -0.100 -0.6806 $8.82 TRK -0.100 -0.3526 $17.02 5.4 MODEL INPUTS Inputs to the RivTAM model are currently developed for two model years, a 2007/2008 existing year and a 2035 forecast year. To develop the 2010 and 2020 model years, inputs to all steps of the model were updated to their corresponding 2010 and 2020 values as necessary. For many inputs it was deemed appropriate to interpolate betwee n the 2007/2008 and 2035 RivTAM model years using an average annual growth rate. To prepare the roadway network, extensive modification was required to incorporate past and future planned roadway projects in and around the study corridor. The primary sources for network improvements were the 2010 SR- 91 Implementation Plan, the 2008 RTP Amendment 4, the 2008 RTIP, and freely available aerial imagery. 5.5 BASE MODEL YEAR INPUTS The 2010 base model year was selected as it is the most recent year for which socio economic, roadway network, and actual traffic count data is available. The inputs to the 2010 base model year were developed in part by pivoting off of both the 2007/2008 and 2035 RivTAM model year inputs. For many inputs, such as external trip tables, an average annual growth rate was calculated and applied to bring the inputs up to the 2010 model year. Updated socioeconomic inputs, as detailed in Chapter 4 of this report, were developed by PB to reflect actual 2010 conditions. To prepare the 2010 roadway network, projects completed pre-2007/2008 and 2008-2010 roadway improvements were verified against completed project lists and aerial imagery. The 2007/2008 RivTAM roadway network was modified as necessary to represent 2010 conditions. Highway improvements throughout the region and localized improvements in the area RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Travel Demand Model May 9, 2012 5.7 surrounding the study corridor were incorporated. Table 5-3 below details network improvements in and around the study corridor deemed important to the extension of the 91 Express Lanes into Riverside County that were completed by 2010. 5.6 FORECAST MODEL YEAR INPUTS, 2020 The first forecast model year selected was 2020. As the extension of the 91 Express Lanes into Riverside County is currently scheduled to open on in 2017, the 2020 model year allows for forecasting a post-ramp up condition, where fluctuations in driver’s route decisions have leveled off and tolls have been adjusted to appropriate levels. As mentioned previously, the RivTAM model only provides 2007/2008 and 2035 model year inputs. As such, inputs for the 2020 model were developed in similar fashion to the 2010 inputs. For many inputs, such as external trip tables, an average annual growth rate was calculated and applied to bring the inputs up to the 2020 model year. Updated socioeconomic inputs, as detailed in Chapter 4 of this report, were developed by PB to reflect forecasted 2020 conditions. To prepare the 2020 roadway network, the 2010 roadway network was modified to represent the most recent assumptions for expected 2020 conditions. Planned highway improvements throughout the region and localized improvements in the area surrounding the stu dy corridor were researched and evaluated for their potential for completion by 2020. Projects of particular relevance to the extension of the 91 Express Lanes into Riverside County were discussed with sponsoring agencies as appropriate. Table 5-3 below details network improvements in and around the study corridor deemed important to the extension of the 91 Express Lanes into Riverside County that are expected to be completed by 2020. Network modifications were made with consideration for roadway geometry defined in the 2035 RivTAM roadway network in order to maintain consistency between model years. 5.7 FORECAST MODEL YEAR INPUTS, 2035 The 2035 forecast model year was selected because the inputs are well defined in the RivTAM model. As such, many inputs to the 2035 model only required reasonableness checking. Updated socioeconomic inputs, as detailed in Chapter 4 of this report, were develop ed by PB to reflect forecasted 2035 conditions. The 2035 roadway network provided with the RivTAM model was verified and updated as necessary to reflect the most recent assumptions for expected 2035 conditions. Planned highway improvements throughout the region and localized improvements in the area surrounding the study corridor were researched and evaluated for their potential for completion by 2035. Projects of particular relevance to the extension of the 91 Express Lanes RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Travel Demand Model May 9, 2012 5.8 into Riverside County were discussed with sponsoring agencies as appropriate. Table 5-3 details network improvements in and around the study corridor deemed important to the SR - 91 Riverside County Express Lanes Project that are expected to be completed by 2035. Table 5-3 Relevant Network Improvements 5.8 MODEL TOLLS The 2007/2008 and 2035 RivTAM roadway networks contained tolls at all toll facilities covered by the model. In preparing both the 2010 and 2020 networks, the derivation of these tolls Network Improvement 2010 Base Network 2020 Base Network 2035 Base Network Additional Comments SR-91, add 1 EB GP, SR-241 to SR-71 o x x Completed in 2010 after calibration data was collected. Makes 5 GP lanes. SR-91, add 1 GP, SR-55 to SR-241 o x x Makes 5 GP lanes. SR-91, add 1 GP, SR-71 to I-15 o x x Makes 5 GP lanes. SR-91, add C/D Road, Main to I-15 o x x SR-91, convert existing HOV lane to Express lane, add 1 Express lane per direction, Orange/Riverside County Line through I-15 o x x 2 Express Lanes / direction, provides mixing area with Orange County Express lanes at Orange/Riverside County Line SR-91 / I-15, add direct connector, west on SR- 91 Express lanes to/from south on I-15 Express Lanes o x x Tolled direct connectors, 1 lane/direction. SR-91 / SR-71 Interchange & EB C/D Road o x x Completion based on a 2-year construction period following the SR-91 CIP completionin SR-91, add 1 WB GP, Tustin Ave o x x Makes 4 GP lanes. SR-91 / SR-241, add Direct Connectors to/from east on SR-91 o x x Tolled direct connectors, 1 lane/direction. SR-91, add 1 GP, SR-57 to SR-55 o o x SR-91, Fairmont Blvd IC o o x SR-91, add 1 GP, SR-241 to SR-71 o o x Based on meeting Measure A voter commitment by 2039. Makes 6 GP lanes. MIS Corridor A o o o MIS Corridor B (Irvine-Corona Expressway)o o o SR-241, Weir Canyon Interchange o o x Foothill South (construct)o x x Foothill South (widen)o o x I-15, add 1 Express lane/direction, SR-60 to El Cerrito o x x Based on I-15 CIP phase 1. I-15, add 1 GP lane/direction, SR-60 to El o o o Based on I-15 CIP phase 2 (completion by I-15 / SR-91, add direct connector, west on SR- 91 Express lanes to/from north on I-15 Express Lanes o o o Based on I-15 CIP phase 2 (completion by 2039). Mid-County Parkway, east of I-215 o o x CETAP West, I-15 to I-215 (formerly MCP from I-15 to I-215)o o x I-10, add HOV lane, I-605 to SR-57 o x x I-210, LA County Line to I-215 x x x Completed. SR-38, High Desert Corridor o o x o = not included in model year network x = included in model year network RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Travel Demand Model May 9, 2012 5.9 could not be determined nor their values verified against toll schedules from prior years. To better represent the 2010 base year tolls, a model toll schedule was prepared based on actual toll schedules obtained for each of the toll facilities in the roadway network. For the future year 2020 and 2035 roadway networks, the long term growth rate of tolls was assumed to parallel inflation, and tolls at new toll facilities were based on previous studies of those facilities, comparable toll roads in the region, or tolls provided in the 2035 RivTAM roadway network. 5.9 CALIBRATION & VALIDATION OF THE MODEL A significant component of model development is the collection, collation and summarization of data representing existing conditions to compare against predictions from the model. This process, called calibration and validation, is essential to developing the model to an investment grade standard. Calibration and validation of the enhanced RivTAM model focused primarily on the study corridor with the objective of reasonably replicating 2010 demand in and around this corridor. Additional limited calibration was done with respect to time-of-day and vehicle occupancy. 5.10 DATA SOURCES To support the calibration and validation process, the extensive project specific data was collected. These data focused on:  Detailed highway volumes within and around the SR-91 corridor  Toll data and tolled traffic information for the toll diversion model  Origin-Destination flows through the project corridor  Travel time data in the project corridor The Caltrans Performance Measurement System (PeMS) count database was examined as the primary source of traffic counts. PeMS provides automated daily counts on freeways across Southern California. A database of detector locations and quality was examined to find count locations in and around the study area with reliable and properly functioning detectors. While some locations had only one detector recording bi-directional traffic, most had two detectors each recording a single direction, and a few with locations with HOV lanes had four. This project’s traffic data subcontractor (DKS) extracted data for these locations by 15 minute period averaged over all weekdays (excluding holidays) between mid-September and mid-November 2010. In addition, DKS took separate counts in early November 2010 at the seven locations shown in Figure 5-2. A complete summary of the data collected was detailed in Chapter 3 earlier in this report. RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Travel Demand Model May 9, 2012 5.10 Figure 5-2 Count Locations 5.11 CALIBRATION & VALIDATION PROCESS To validate the assignment accuracy of the model, all available counts were aggregated by the four time periods defined by the model and posted to the appropriate links in the 2010 roadway network, and a toll diversion assignment was performed. It was found that on a daily basis the model was producing acceptable volume/count ratios, but that the model was not producing acceptable aggregate volume/count ratios by time period. A simplified approach was developed using trip table adjustment factors for each time period to bring the aggregate volume/count ratios by time period closer to acceptable levels. Early model runs also revealed that the model tended to overestimate the number of trips using HOV lanes in and around the study corridor. To bring aggregate HOV lane volume/count ratios closer to acceptable levels, an adjustment factor was applied to the HOV2 and HOV3+ trip tables to decrease the number of HOV trips in the model. The difference in trips was added back into the trip tables as SOV trips, such that the total number of trips was unchanged by trip purpose and time period. To further adjust the HOV lane volume/count ratios, t he speed and capacity of the HOV lanes, initially determined by the RivTAM model, were reduced by 20% and 30%, respectively, to represent the additional impedance associated with weaving into and out of the HOV lanes, other access/egress restrictions and bus volumes. The above adjustments each improved the aggregate volume/count ratios of the 2010 assignment. It was decided to perform a more comprehensive and detailed adjustment of the trip tables, to reflect micro-level errors in the zone-to-zone trip tables that were preventing the assigned volumes from being close enough to the counts. This was done using a procedure that automatically adjusts a trip table in response to count data. The procedure utilized is called Adaptable Assignment (AA). This process has been documented in technical papers and has been used in several prior studies. 5 4 3 2 7 6 1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Travel Demand Model May 9, 2012 5.11 The adaptable assignment process iterates through the trip tables one O/D pair at a time, compares the total volume on the assigned route with the total of the counts on the assigned route and adjusts the number of trips for that O/D pa ir based on the volume/count ratio. A new assignment is performed using the adjusted trip tables, and the process repeated. For this project, the process was repeated for four iterations. Finally, the starting trip tables are subtracted from the final trip tables to derive a calibration adjustment table. For the forecast model years, the calibration tables are added to the trip tables produced by the model to produce the final trip tables that are used for assignment. The result of the calibration adjustments above is a model that reflects the most recent travel forecasting work in the region, has been enhanced with a state -of-the-art toll diversion model, and which matches the 2010 count data reasonably well. While there are no nationally accepted guidelines that define reasonably well quantitatively, the most recent and relevant guidance is found in the Federal Highway Administration’s Travel Model Improvement Program document Travel Model Validation and Reasonableness Checking, Se cond Edition, September 2010. This report says that the best indicators for judging assignment accuracy are the aggregate volume/count ratio and the percent root-mean-square error (%RMSE). The %RMSE is a more stringent statistic, as it treats all errors (high or low) the same and is based on the square of assigned volume vs. count difference. While this document does not provide a specific Federal standard on what level of accuracy is acceptable, it does summarize the %RMSE guidelines used in Ohio, Florida, and Oregon, as shown in Figure 5-3. This figure represents daily assignments. Table 5-4 presents aggregate volume/count accuracy criteria, stratified by facility type, from an earlier version of the FHWA report. RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Travel Demand Model May 9, 2012 5.12 Figure 5-3 %RMSE Assignment Accuracy Guidelines Source of graphic: Travel Model Validation and Reasonableness Checking, Second Edition , prepared by Cambridge Systematics for FHWA, September 2010. Table 5-4 Volume/Count Assignment Accuracy Criteria by Functional Classification Functional Classification Volume/Count Error Freeway ±7% Principal Arterial ±10% Minor Arterial ±15% Collector ±25% Source: Model Validation and Reasonableness Checking Manual, prepared by Barton-Aschman Associates and Cambridge Systematics for FHWA, February 1997. Figure 5-4 presents the %RMSE for link groups based on daily link volume for the enhan ced RivTAM Model, along with a logarithmic trend line. It can be seen that for most link groups, %RMSE is in line with or lower than the levels depicted in Figure 5-3. One point, representing the HOV lanes has a high %RMSE, however, given the difficulties in forecasting HOV volumes detailed earlier in the chapter, this point is not considered problematic. RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Travel Demand Model May 9, 2012 5.13 Figure 5-4 Enhanced RivTAM Model %RMSE Assignment Accuracy Table 5-5 presents the Volume/Count Error and %RMSE for the enhance d RivTAM model grouped by facility type. It can be seen that the Volume/Count Error in the enhanced RivTAM model is generally lower than the levels depicted in Table 5-4. Table 5-6 presents the Volume/Count Error and %RMSE for the enhanced RivTAM model grouped by time period. Table 5-5 Enhanced RivTAM Model Volume/Count Assignment Accuracy by Facility Type Facility Type Volume/Count Error %RMSE Freeway -3.8% 9.6% Expressway -5.3% 13.7% HOV Lanes -0.3% 43.2% All Links -3.5% 13.3% Table 5-6 Enhanced RivTAM Model Volume/Count Assignment Accuracy by Period Time Period Volume/Count Error %RMSE AM Peak -0.7% 22.2% Mid-Day -5.2% 15.4% PM Peak -0.1% 22.7% Night -6.3% 16.4% RIVERSIDE COUNTY 91 6.1 6.0 Micro-Simulation Model 6.1 OVERVIEW A micro-simulation model was created and used to model the future operations and potential traffic and revenue for the proposed Riverside County Express Lanes. Micro-simulation is a traffic modeling procedure that produces a highly detailed traffic simulation. Vehicles are individually loaded onto the highway network and their impact on traffic operations are simulated on a second by second basis. This chapter presents the overall modeling methodology, existing conditions model development and calibration, and use of the model to forecast future year 2035 PM peak period conditions. 6.2 METHODOLOGY PTV’s VISSIM version 5.2 software was used to model the proposed Riverside County Express Lanes. The simulation was built to model the future year 2035 2 PM to 7 PM period. VISSIM’s built-in managed use lanes model framework was used to forecast the demand for the proposed express lanes. Initially an existing conditions model was created and calibrated in an effort to prove the model’s ability to accurately replicate existing conditions traffic during the 2 PM to 7 PM period. Highway network geometry was obtained from aerial photography available from internet maps and photographs supplied by Google and Microsoft’s Bing.com and survey data. Origin and destination matrices were built from traffic data collect ed from the Caltrans PEMS database, Orange County SR 91 Express Lanes traffic data obtained from the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), and counts independently conducted during November 2010 using Wavetronix and Blufax traffic count technology. The model was calibrated against traffic count data and travel time data also collected during November 2010. A future conditions model was created by modifying the existing conditions model’s geometry based on information from drawings provided by the Project design team as well as knowledge of projects scheduled in the RTP and 2011 SR 91 Implementation Plan. Future traffic volumes were developed based on travel demand model forecasts for the year 2035. Operations were evaluated using model predicted travel time and throughput, and revenue was predicted by the software’s built-in managed use lanes model. RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Micro-Simulation Model May 9, 2012 6.2 6.3 EXISTING CONDITIONS MODEL The purpose of the existing conditions model is to create a model that can be expected to reliably depict future year conditions. This is accomplished by modeling the existing condition as surveyed in November 2010, using traffic count data, a set of origin-destination volumes, network characteristics, and driver behaviors that can replicate observed conditions. 6.3.1 Network Assumptions The existing conditions model replicates the SR 91 and I-15 highway network as of November 2010, following cessation of construction of the SR 91 EB auxiliary lane between SR 241 and SR 71, but prior to its opening. The extents of the model, shown in Figure 6-1, are:  SR 91 west of Tustin Avenue  SR 55 south of SR 91  SR 91 east of Pierce Street  I-15 north of 2nd Street  I-15 south of Cajalco Road Figure 6-1 Existing Conditions Micro simulation Model Study Area The network’s western extents were chosen to be west of Tustin Avenue and just south of SR 91 on SR 55 because these locations serve as the two portals from which traffic can make the decision to use the Orange County SR 91 Express Lanes or the adjacent free general purpose lanes. Managed use lane decision coefficients for both the existing SR 91 Express Lanes and proposed extension into Riverside County were developed based on modeling of this de cision. The eastern and southern extents of SR 91 east of Pierce Street and I -15 south of Cajalco Road reflect locations where recurring PM peak period congestion is known to end. These locations RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Micro-Simulation Model May 9, 2012 6.3 are local bottlenecks that cause recurring congestion and queuing that impact upstream segments of SR 91. The northern extent of I-15 north of 2nd Street reflects the point at which the number of lanes on I-15 north of SR 91 stabilizes at three lanes per direction. Table 6-1 lists by segment and direction the number of lanes coded for the general purpose lanes, SR 91 Express Lanes, and Riverside County HOV lanes. The number of lanes on freeways and ramps in the study area were identified using a combination of aerial photography from Google’s internet mapping website (maps.google.com) and Microsoft’s Bing.com, traffic counts, and site visits. Table 6-1 SR 91, Existing Conditions Model Number of Lanes Segment EB GP EB HOV/T WB GP WB HOV/T SR 55 to Lakeview 6 2 5 1 Through Lakeview 5 2 5 2 Lakeview to Imperial 5 2 5 2 Through Imperial 4 2 4 2 Imperial to Weir 4 2 4 2 Through Weir 4 2 4 2 Weir to 241 5 2 5 2 241 to Gypsum West 4 2 4 2 Through Gypsum 4 2 4 2 Gypsum to 241 East 4 2 4 2 241 to CL 4 2 5 2 CL to Green River 4 2 (Start HOV) 6 1 Through Green River 4 2 6 1 Green River to SR 71 4 1 5 1 Through SR 71 4 1 4 1 SR 71 to Serfas Club 5 1 5 1 Through Serfas Club 4 1 4 1 Serfas Club to Maple 5 1 5 1 Through Maple 4 1 4 1 Maple to Lincoln 4 1 4 1 Through Lincoln 5 0 4 1 Lincoln to 2nd 4 1 4 1 2nd to Main St 4 1 5 0 Through Main St 4 1 4 1 Main St to I-15 5 1 5 1 Through I-15 3 1 3 1 I-15 to McKinley 4 1 4 1 Through McKinley 3 1 3 1 McKinley to Pierce Street 3 1 3 1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Micro-Simulation Model May 9, 2012 6.4 Table 6-2 I-15, Existing Conditions Model Number of Lanes Segment SB GP NB GP North of 2nd Street 3 3 2nd Street to Hidden Valley Pkwy 4 4 Hidden Valley Pkwy to SR 91 4 4 SR 91 to Magnolia Avenue 5 4 Magnolia Avenue to Ontario Ave 4 4 Ontario Ave to El Cerrito Road 4 3 El Cerrito Road to Cajalco Road 3 3 South of Cajalco Road 3 3 6.3.2 Volume Assumptions For the existing model year, traffic counts over the period were collected to develop demand volumes. Demand volumes were created by combining entry ramp, exit ramp, and eastbound mainline count data on SR 91 west of SR 55 and on SR 55, and westbound mainl ine data from SR 91 east of I-15, and from I-15 direct connector data. Input traffic data came from a variety of sources as listed in Table 6-3. Table 6-3 Micro simulation Model Existing Volume Sources Location Data Source SR 91 Express Lanes OCTA transaction data SR 91 GP and HOV lanes, and I-15 mainline Wavetronix and PEMS data SR 241 direct connector volumes TCA transaction and PEMS data SR 71 and I-15 direct connector volumes Wavetronix and Blufax OD data All other ramps PEMS short term and long term count data As demonstrated in Chapter 3, the SR 91 eastbound general purpose lanes operate at conditions that exceed capacity during the PM peak period. To reflect the demand overcapacity condition, traffic demand exceeding traffic count levels were input into the micro-simulation model. The SR 91 GP lanes experience heavy congestion and queuing throughout the PM peak period (3-7 PM), and at certain locations during the 2-3 PM shoulder hour. Queues can be observed developing at various chokepoints; 1) the eastbound segment east of SR 241, 2) segments between SR 71 and I-15, where the GP lanes drop from 5 to 4 lanes, along with weaving of vehicles entering and exiting via ramps, and vehicles weaving in and out of HOV lanes, and 3) through McKinley and Pierce Streets where the eastbound GP lanes drop from four to three general purpose lanes. RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Micro-Simulation Model May 9, 2012 6.5 The aggregation of entry ramp, exit ramp, and edge of network mainline entry volumes resulted in a distribution of general purpose traffic demand from 2 PM to 7 PM that exceeds levels counted in the field. Figure 6-2 through Figure 6-5 compare eastbound GP lane counts and input demand. Figure 6-2 Existing Conditions SR 241 to CL, EB GP Demand vs. Count Figure 6-3 Existing Conditions SR 71 to Serfas Club, EB GP Demand vs. Count 4,000 4,500 5,000 5,500 6,000 6,500 7,000 7,500 8,000 8,500 9,000 2p-3p 3p-4p 4p-5p 5p-6p 6p-7p% Difference, Model Count vs Input VolumeSR 241 to County Line, EB GP DEMAND COUNT VOLUME - 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 2p-3p 3p-4p 4p-5p 5p-6p 6p-7p% Difference, Model Count vs Input VolumeSR 71 to Serfas Club, EB GP DEMAND COUNT VOLUME RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Micro-Simulation Model May 9, 2012 6.6 Figure 6-4 Existing Conditions Main Street to I-15, EB GP Demand vs. Count Figure 6-5 Existing Conditions I-15 to McKinley Street, EB GP Demand vs. Count Eastbound Express lane and HOV lane demand levels were set to match traffic counts. Figure 6-6 through Figure 6-9 demonstrate that at all four locations demand and counts match or are similar to each other. 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 1p-2p 2p-3p 3p-4p 4p-5p 5p-6p% Difference, Model Count vs Input VolumeMain Street to I-15, EB GP DEMAND COUNT VOLUME - 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 1p-2p 2p-3p 3p-4p 4p-5p 5p-6p% Difference, Model Count vs Input VolumeI-15 to McKinley, EB GP DEMAND COUNT VOLUME RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Micro-Simulation Model May 9, 2012 6.7 Figure 6-6 Existing Conditions SR 241 to CL, EB Express Demand vs. Count Figure 6-7 Existing Conditions SR 71 to Serfas Club, EB HOV Demand vs. Count - 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 2p-3p 3p-4p 4p-5p 5p-6p 6p-7pVolumeSR 241 to County Line, EB Express DEMAND COUNT VOLUME - 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 2p-3p 3p-4p 4p-5p 5p-6p 6p-7pVolumeSR 71 to Serfas Club, EB HOV DEMAND COUNT VOLUME RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Micro-Simulation Model May 9, 2012 6.8 Figure 6-8 Existing Conditions Main Street to I-15, EB HOV Demand vs. Count Figure 6-9 Existing Conditions I-15 to McKinley Street, EB HOV Demand vs. Count The westbound general purpose and HOV lanes in Riverside County were observed to typically operate without congestion during the 2 PM to 7 PM period. Based on these observations, input demand should match or be similar to counted traffic levels. General purpose lane - 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 2p-3p 3p-4p 4p-5p 5p-6p 6p-7pVolumeMain Street to I-15, EB HOV DEMAND COUNT VOLUME - 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 2p-3p 3p-4p 4p-5p 5p-6p 6p-7pVolumeI-15 to McKinley, EB HOV DEMAND COUNT VOLUME RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Micro-Simulation Model May 9, 2012 6.9 demand and counts are within a small range of error at two critical locations, be tween SR 241 and Green River Road, and between I-15 and Main Street. These locations are located at the western and eastern ends of the proposed Riverside County Express Lanes. Input demand at the location between SR 71 and Serfas Club Road exceed counted levels while the location east of I-15 is below counted levels. Neither the over or underestimation are critical to the overall model calibration since the westbound lanes would still operate below capacity in both existing and future PM peak periods. HOV lane demand match or are similar to counts at all four locations. Figure 6-10 Existing Conditions SR 241 to CL, WB GP Demand vs. Count - 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 2p-3p 3p-4p 4p-5p 5p-6p 6p-7pModel Count vs Input VolumeSR 241 to County Line, WB GP DEMAND COUNT VOLUME RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Micro-Simulation Model May 9, 2012 6.10 Figure 6-11 Existing Conditions SR 71 to Serfas Club, WB GP Demand vs. Count Figure 6-12 Existing Conditions Main Street to I-15, WB GP Demand vs. Count - 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 2p-3p 3p-4p 4p-5p 5p-6p 6p-7pModel Count vs Input VolumeSR 71 to Serfas Club, WB GP DEMAND COUNT VOLUME - 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 2p-3p 3p-4p 4p-5p 5p-6p 6p-7pModel Count vs Input VolumeMain St to I-15, WB GP DEMAND COUNT VOLUME RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Micro-Simulation Model May 9, 2012 6.11 Figure 6-13 Existing Conditions McKinley Street to I-15, WB GP Demand vs. Count Figure 6-14 Existing Conditions SR 241 to Green River Road, WB Express Demand vs. Count - 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 1p-2p 2p-3p 3p-4p 4p-5p 5p-6pModel Count vs Input VolumeI-15 to McKinley, WB GP DEMAND COUNT VOLUME - 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 2p-3p 3p-4p 4p-5p 5p-6p 6p-7pVolumeSR 241 to Green River Road, WB Express DEMAND COUNT VOLUME RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Micro-Simulation Model May 9, 2012 6.12 Figure 6-15 Existing Conditions SR 71 to Serfas Club, WB HOV Demand vs. Count Figure 6-16 Existing Conditions Main Street to I-15, WB HOV Demand vs. Count - 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 2p-3p 3p-4p 4p-5p 5p-6p 6p-7pVolumeSerfas Club to SR 71, WB HOV DEMAND COUNT VOLUME - 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 2p-3p 3p-4p 4p-5p 5p-6p 6p-7pVolumeI-15 to Main Street, WB HOV DEMAND COUNT VOLUME RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Micro-Simulation Model May 9, 2012 6.13 Figure 6-17 Existing Conditions McKinley Street to I-15, WB HOV Demand vs. Count To ensure that eastbound input traffic demand did not over or under estimate actual demand, it is necessary to identify the hours preceding and following the first hour and last hour where congestion, and therefore demand exceeding capacity exists. From a review of traffic and speed data presented in Chapter 3, the 1 -2 PM and 7-8 PM hours can be seen to have little to no congestion. Collectively, traffic counted during the 1-8 PM hours, and demand estimated during the same time period should match or be within a small percentage of each other. Table 6-4 compares total traffic counts with total estimated demand at four segments in the corridor, and demonstrates that estimated demand deviates from the overall counts by no more than 2.6, and is as close as 0.2 percent. Table 6-4 SR 91 Eastbound Global (GP & HOV) Traffic Count vs. Estimated Demand, 1-8 PM Heavy Vehicle Distribution Wavetronix traffic counts classified vehicles into three size classes, small, medium, and large, which correspond to vehicle lengths (vehicles less than 30 feet are small, 30 to 40 feet are medium, and 40+ feet are large vehicles). The data demonstrate that the percentage of large vehicles traveling eastbound vary from 1.1 percent to 3.2 percent over t he course of the 2 PM - 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 2p-3p 3p-4p 4p-5p 5p-6p 6p-7pVolumeMcKinley Street to I-15, WB HOV DEMAND COUNT VOLUME Segment Count Estimated Demand % Difference 241 to CL 62,013 63,655 2.6% SR 71 to Serfas 56,186 56,313 0.2% Main St To I-15 61,613 60,724 -1.4% I-15 to McKinley 47,286 48,268 2.1% RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Micro-Simulation Model May 9, 2012 6.14 to 7 PM period and across the four survey locations. Westbound percentages vary from 1.6 percent to 4.1 percent. The ranges of large vehicle percentages are relatively small and not expected to have significant impact on the simulation results. Therefore as a simplifying assumption, heavy vehicle percentages by direction were estimated for each hour and direction by averaging the percentages observed at each of the four count locations. Table 6-5 presents the hourly heavy vehicle percentages input for the eastbound and westbound directions. Table 6-5 Count vs. Estimated Large Truck and Bus Percentages Origin and Destination Matrix Volumes for entry and exit ramps were developed from an hourly balanced demand origin and destination (O/D) matrix for the 2 PM to 7 PM time period. Using a matrix of O/D patterns from the RivTAM travel demand model, O/D trip matrices were developed from on/off ramps volumes for each hour. To better calibrate trip patterns on SR-91 near the I-15 interchange, Blufax O/D data was used as a target and O/D seed matrices were adjusted to match those targets. Table 6-6 presents summary level O/D volumes input into the existing conditions model. Table 6-6 Existing Conditions O/D Demand Table, 2-7 PM Eastbound Westbound Time Used in simulation SR 241 to Green River Rd SR 71 to Serfas Club Main St to I-15 I-15 to McKinley Used in simulation SR 241 to Green River Rd SR 71 to Serfas Club Main St to I-15 I-15 to McKinley 2-3 PM 2.8%3.2%2.1%3.2%2.4%3.3%2.6%3.5%2.9%4.1% 3-4 PM 2.3%2.8%1.7%2.5%2.1%2.7%2.2%2.9%2.5%3.4% 4-5 PM 2.5%3.0%1.3%3.2%2.5%2.2%1.9%2.3%1.9%2.8% 5-6 PM 2.0%2.5%1.2%2.3%2.2%1.8%1.7%1.9%1.6%1.9% 6-7 PM 1.6%1.9%1.1%1.8%1.6%2.4%2.4%2.5%2.1%2.7% Origin/Destination West of SR-55 SR-55 B'twn SR-55 & SR-241 SR-241 Green River & SR-71 B'twn SR-71 & I-15 I-15 North I-15 South East of I-15 Total West of SR-55 6,650 8,600 11,100 200 2,100 3,150 1,400 2,650 4,500 35,850 SR-55 10,500 8,250 0 3,500 2,900 2,050 2,700 5,550 29,900 B'twn SR-55 & SR-241 8,950 9,550 1,350 1,600 4,650 1,400 1,000 850 2,200 29,350 SR-241 400 0 3,200 3,150 1,050 1,650 950 2,600 10,400 Green River & SR-71 1,400 1,600 2,500 900 1,950 2,550 300 2,400 1,450 13,600 B'twn SR-71 & I-15 2,350 1,200 1,150 300 4,450 1,100 2,600 3,700 7,800 16,850 I-15 North 2,100 1,650 950 1,000 300 2,750 11,400 13,400 5,700 33,550 I-15 South 2,500 1,900 850 750 2,450 2,900 11,200 17,950 7,600 40,500 East of I-15 4,350 2,700 850 1,350 1,200 5,500 4,950 6,100 10,000 27,000 Total 34,850 24,500 29,350 4,750 22,550 17,800 31,600 44,600 37,400 210,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Micro-Simulation Model May 9, 2012 6.15 6.3.3 Car Following Model Parameters The simulation principally relies on the use of the freeway lane driving behavior (Wiedemann 99 car following model). The calibration procedure required modifications to VISSIM’s default freeway driving behaviors. The use of default parameters would result in capacity above observed levels as well as unrealistic lane changing behavior. In conjunction with information from published simulation reports (Gomes, Horowitz, Path 2005), parameters were adjusted based on observations of throughput, travel speeds, and lane changing behavior. The following general parameters resulted in model results that were representative of observed conditions. Table 6-7 Car Following Model Parameters Parameter Link Type Basic Freeway Hard Curve Heavy Weave Headway (CC1, sec) 1.1 1.5 1.0 Following (CC4/5) -2.0/-2.0 -2.0/-2.0 -2.0/-2.0 Safety Distance Reduction Factor 0.30 0.60 0.05 Vehicle Diffusion (sec) 120 120 60 6.3.4 Managed Lanes Coefficients and Tolls Express lane traffic levels were forecast using Vissim 5.2’s built in managed lanes decision model. The decision model assigns to each vehicle passing a managed lane decision point a probability of that vehicle using the Express Lanes. The probability is calculated using a Logit model of the form: where The decision applies only to vehicles that are eligible to use the Express Lanes. Eligible vehicles were classified as any vehicle that is permitted to use the Express Lanes and also has an origin and destination that can be served by the Orange County Express Lanes without any back- tracking. For example any SOV, HOV2+, or bus, but not a heavy truck trip traveling from SR 55 to Serfas Club Drive would be subjected to the managed lanes decision. However a single occupant vehicle traveling from SR 55 to Weir Canyon Road would not be subjected to the decision, even though the vehicle could travel from SR 55 to Weir Canyon Road via the RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Micro-Simulation Model May 9, 2012 6.16 eastbound Express Lanes, exit at Green River Road and use the westbound GP lanes to get to Weir Canyon Road. A set of coefficients were developed for each vehicle class using the eastbound SR 91 Express Lanes, and a separate set were developed for the westbound SR 91 Express Lanes. Coefficients were adjusted until simulated express lane volumes were close to actual observed lev els. Figure 6-18 and Figure 6-19 show a managed use lane probability curve at a $2 toll and a $5 toll, for each direction and vehicle class. The eastbound toll curves show greater price sensitivity for SOV’s, and reduced sensitivity for higher occupancy vehicles. Price sensitivity also declines as travel time savings from using the managed lanes increases. Westbound toll curves are more sensitive than eastbound curves are to price changes, but also assume the same reduced sensitivity at higher time savings and higher occupancies. Table 6-8 and Table 6-9 show toll rates used for the eastbound and westbound Express Lanes. RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Micro-Simulation Model May 9, 2012 6.17 Figure 6-18 SR 91 Eastbound Toll Curves by Vehicle Class SOV Toll Curve HOV2 Toll Curve HOV3+ Toll Curve Bus Toll Curve Table 6-8 SR 91 Eastbound Express Lane Tolls Modeled Occupancy 2-3 PM 3-4 PM 4-5 PM 5-6 PM 6-7 PM SOV $4.15 $4.70 $8.70 $8.50 $4.05 HOV2 $4.15 $4.70 $8.70 $8.50 $4.05 HOV3 $0.00 $0.00 $4.35 $4.25 $0.00 Bus $0.00 $0.00 $4.35 $4.25 $0.00 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60% of OD Eligible Trips Using Express LanesExpress Lane Travel Time Savings SR 91 Eastbound SOV $2 Toll $5 Toll 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60% of OD Eligible Trips Using Express LanesExpress Lane Travel Time Savings SR 91 Eastbound HOV2 $2 Toll $5 Toll 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60% of OD Eligible Trips Using Express LanesExpress Lane Travel Time Savings SR 91 Eastbound HOV3+ $2 Toll $5 Toll 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60% of OD Eligible Trips Using Express LanesExpress Lane Travel Time Savings SR 91 Eastbound Bus $2 Toll $5 Toll RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Micro-Simulation Model May 9, 2012 6.18 Westbound Coefficients and Tolls Figure 6-19 SR 91 Westbound Toll Curves by Vehicle Class SOV Toll Curve HOV2 Toll Curve HOV3+ Toll Curve Bus Toll Curve Table 6-9 SR 91 Westbound Express Lane Tolls Modeled Occupancy 2-3 PM 3-4 PM 4-5 PM 5-6 PM 6-7 PM SOV $2.05 $2.05 $2.05 $2.05 $2.05 HOV2 $2.05 $2.05 $2.05 $2.05 $2.05 HOV3 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Bus $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60% of OD Eligible Trips Using Express LanesExpress Lane Travel Time Savings SR 91 Westbound SOV $2 Toll $5 Toll 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60% of OD Eligible Trips Using Express LanesExpress Lane Travel Time Savings SR 91 Westbound HOV2 $2 Toll $5 Toll 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60% of OD Eligible Trips Using Express LanesExpress Lane Travel Time Savings SR 91 Westbound HOV3+ $2 Toll $5 Toll 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60% of OD Eligible Trips Using Express LanesExpress Lane Travel Time Savings SR 91 Westbound Bus $2 Toll $5 Toll RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Micro-Simulation Model May 9, 2012 6.19 HOV lane traffic in Riverside County was modeled independently of the managed use lanes model. HOV Lane traffic in Riverside County was assigned using fixed percentages of global traffic as observed from traffic count data. Modeled HOV lane traffic levels were therefore not dependent on travel time savings, but instead were forced to match observed share of global traffic. 6.3.5 Modeled Traffic Results vs. Actual The existing conditions simulation model calibration process resulted in a good match to eastbound traffic counts and travel speeds, and a reasonable representation of westbound counts and speeds. The calibration process focused on obtaining a good match to eastbound general purpose lane and express lane conditions during the PM peak period on the basi s of traffic counts and travel speeds. The performance of the westbound general purpose and express lanes were of lesser importance because this direction experiences light congestion during the PM peak period and is expected to continue to see light trav el in the future. Therefore the reliability of the PM peak period contribution of the westbound elements to the Riverside County SR 91 Express Lanes would be less critical. Using the coefficients and tolls presented, the managed use lanes model was able to produce traffic volumes that are similar to actual observed traffic levels. Traffic on the eastbound Express Lanes during the modeled period was similar to actual levels. Westbound levels did not match as well and overshot by a larger amount during the period. Eastbound general purpose lane, SR 91 Express Lane, and Riverside County HOV lane model volumes were similar to counted levels, and aggregate travel speeds in the corridor were similar to observed levels. Together, they demonstrate that the cali bration process has resulted in the proper balance between input O/D demand volumes, and link capacities. Car following model parameters and managed use lane coefficients are capable of reproducing observed traffic patterns. RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Micro-Simulation Model May 9, 2012 6.20 Figure 6-20 SR 91 Eastbound General Purpose Lanes, Model vs. Count, 2 -7 PM Figure 6-21 SR 91 Eastbound Express and HOV Lanes, Model vs. Count, 2 -7 PM 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 241 to CL SR 71 to Serfas Main St to I-15 I-15 to McKinley StGP Lane Volume 2-7 PMCount Model 0 3,000 6,000 9,000 12,000 15,000 241 to CL SR 71 to Serfas Main St to I-15 I-15 to McKinley StExpress and HOV Lane Volume 2-7 PMCount Model RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Micro-Simulation Model May 9, 2012 6.21 Figure 6-22 SR 91 Eastbound Travel Speeds, Model vs. Actual, 2-7 PM Calibration results of the westbound facility demonstrated that the model did not match actual results as closely, but still are representative of observed conditions. General purpose lane model volumes are lower than observed between SR 241 and the County Line, and from I -15 to McKinley Street. SR 91 Express Lane volumes were over-predicted by the managed use lanes model, and HOV lane volumes between I-15 and McKinley Street were lower than observed, in line with the lower GP lane volume. Aggregate travel speeds on the SR 91 corridor were lower than observed. Since the westbound Riverside County Express Lanes are expected to make only a small contribution to total facility traffic and revenue during the PM Peak period, over or underestimation of traffic on the westbound facility is of lesser significance. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PMSegment Speed, mphEB SR 91 GP & Express, SR 55 to East of I15 Actual Avg Speed Model Avg Speed RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Micro-Simulation Model May 9, 2012 6.22 Figure 6-23 SR 91 Westbound General Purpose Lanes, Model vs. Count, 2 -7 PM Figure 6-24 SR 91 Westbound Express and HOV Lanes, Model vs. Count, 2-7 PM 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 241 to CL SR 71 to Serfas Main St to I-15 I-15 to McKinley StGP Lane Volume 2-7 PMCount Model 0 3,000 6,000 9,000 12,000 15,000 241 to CL SR 71 to Serfas Main St to I-15 I-15 to McKinley StExpress and HOV Lane Volume 2-7 PMCount Model RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Micro-Simulation Model May 9, 2012 6.23 Figure 6-25 SR 91 Westbound Travel Speeds, Model vs. Actual, 2 -7 PM 6.4 FUTURE YEAR MODEL ASSUMPTIONS AND RESULTS Simulations of future scenarios model the 2035 condition before and after the GP lane improvements scheduled for completion by year 2035 (GP lane addition from SR 241 to SR 71 and I-15 to Pierce Street). Both scenarios exclude Corridor A, the I-15/91 HOT direct connectors to/from the north, and the SR 71/91 HOT direct connectors. The Riverside County SR 91 Express Lanes are modeled as described in the “initial” condition in both the scenario prior to the year 2035 general purpose lane improvements (2035 by 2020 Network) and after year 2035 improvements (2035 by 2035 Network). The list below details the principal network assumptions in each scenario. 6.4.1 Network Assumptions and Scenarios The “2035 by 2020 network” scenario assumes the highway network for years from 2020 and 2034, while the 2035 network represents the highway network for years from 2035 to 2039. Both scenarios assume year 2035 trip levels. Two scenarios were modeled because in 2035, significant highway improvements would be made that would change travel patterns and express lane usage. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PMSegment Speed, mphWB, east of I-15 to SR 55 Actual Speed (mph)Model Speed RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Micro-Simulation Model May 9, 2012 6.24 2035 by 2020 network From 2020 to 2035, the network is generally unchanged. Generally 5 general purpose lanes would be available between SR 241 and I-15, and 3 to 4 GP lanes would be available east of I-15. The following is a list of highway improvements that are included in the 2035 by 2020 network scenario:  Eastbound auxiliary lane between SR 241 and SR 71 completed in December 2010  Fifth general purpose lane between SR 55 and SR 241 that is scheduled for completion in 2013.  Riverside County SR 91 Express Lanes, two lanes each direction with direct connector ramps to and from I-15 south of SR 91 but not I-15 north of SR 91.  SR 91/241 tolled direct connector  SR 71/91 general purpose lane connector improvement  Serfas Club Drive, Maple Avenue, and Lincoln Avenue interchange and ramp improvements  Includes Main street CD road improvements  Includes Phase 1 of the I-15 Express Lanes between El Cerrito Road and the northern extent of the micro simulation study area (2nd Street) 2035 by 2035 Network The 2035 by 2035 network scenario adds several highway improvements scheduled for completion by year 2035. These improvements include:  Sixth general purpose lane between SR 241 and SR 71 in each direction  Additional general purpose lane in each direction of SR 91 between I -15 and Pierce Street  CETAP corridor with direct access to the I-15 general purpose lanes north and south of Cajalco Road. North facing ramps (CETAP WB to I-15 NB, I-15 SB to CETAP EB) are assumed north of Cajalco Road, and south facing ramps (CETAP WB to I -15 SB, I-15 NB to CETAP EB) are assumed south of Cajalco Road. Table 6-10 lists the number of lanes assumed in each scenario by segment of SR 91. RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Micro-Simulation Model May 9, 2012 6.25 Table 6-10 SR 91 Number of General Purpose Lanes Segment 2035 by 2020 Network 2035 by 2035 Network GP (EB/WB) Exp(EB/WB) GP (EB/WB) Exp(EB/WB) SR 55 to Lakeview 7/5 2/2 7/5 1/1 Through Lakeview 6/5 2/2 6/5 2/2 Lakeview to Imperial 6/5 2/2 6/5 2/2 Through Imperial 5/5 2/2 5/5 2/2 Imperial to Weir 5/5 2/2 5/5 2/2 Through Weir 5/5 2/2 5/5 2/2 Weir to SR 241 6/6 2/2 6/6 2/2 SR 241 to Gypsum West 4/4 2/2 4/4 2/2 Through Gypsum 4/4 2/2 4/4 2/2 Gypsum to SR 241 East 4/4 2/2 4/4 2/2 SR 241 to County Line 5/5 3/3 6/6 3/3 County Line to Green River 8/8 0/0 9/9 0/0 Through Green River 5/5 2/2 6/6 2/2 Green River to SR 71 5/6 2/2 6/6 2/2 SR 71 Interchange 5/5 2/2 5/5 2/2 SR 71 to Serfas Club 6/6 2/2 6/6 2/2 Through Serfas Club 5/5 2/2 5/5 2/2 Serfas Club to Maple 5/5 2/2 5/5 2/2 Through Maple 5/5 2/2 5/5 2/2 Maple to Lincoln 5/5 2/2 5/5 2/2 Through Lincoln 5/5 2/2 5/5 2/2 Lincoln to Main 7/7 2/2 7/7 2/2 Through Main 6/6 2/2 6/6 2/2 Main to I-15 6/6 2/2 4/4 2/2 Through I-15 3/3 0/0 5/5 0/0 I-15 to McKinley 5/4 1/1 5/5 1/1 Through McKinley 4/3 0/0 4/4 1/1 McKinley to Pierce Street 4/3 1/1 4/4 1/1 Through Pierce Street 3/3 1/1 3/3 1/1 In both the 2035 by 2020 network and 2035 by 2035 network scenarios, I -15 improvements are limited to the addition of Express Lanes (two lanes per direction from Ontario Avenue to SR 91, and one lane per direction otherwise), and an auxiliary lane to accommodate Express Lane access from the Express Lane access point between Magnolia and Ontario, to Ontario Avenue, and from the I-15 Express Lane southern terminus between El Cerrito and Cajalco Road, to Cajalco Road. Table 6-11 lists the number of lanes assumed on I-15 in both scenarios. RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Micro-Simulation Model May 9, 2012 6.26 Table 6-11 I-15 Number of General Purpose and Express Lanes Segment 2035 by 2020 Network 2035 by 2035 Network GP (SB/NB) Exp(SB/NB) GP (SB/NB) Exp(SB/NB) 2nd Street to Hidden Valley 5/5 1/1 5/5 1/1 Through Hidden Valley 4/4 1/1 4/4 1/1 Hidden Valley Pkwy to SR 91 4/4 1/1 4/4 1/1 Through SR-91 3/3 1/1 3/3 1/1 SR 91 to Magnolia 5/4 2/2 5/4 2/2 Through Magnolia 4/3 2/2 4/3 2/2 Magnolia to Access Point 1 4/4 2/2 4/4 2/2 Access point 1 to Ontario 5/4 1/1 5/4 1/1 Through Ontario Ave 4/4 1/1 4/4 1/1 Ontario Ave to El Cerrito 4/3 1/1 4/3 1/1 Through El Cerrito 3/3 1/1 3/3 1/1 El Cerrito to Access Point 2 4/4 1/1 4/3 1/1 Access Point 2 4/4 1/1 4/3 0/0 6.4.2 Volume Assumptions Traffic levels in both scenarios assume year 2035 trips. Trip tables rely on the SR 91 mainline segment volume percentage traffic growth between the existing and future 2035 condition predicted by the RivTAM travel demand model. As an example, if the upstream segment grows 10% and the downstream segment grows 12%, the corresponding micro simulation input volumes were grown 10% and 12%, respectively. Then, both the on and off ramps were grown at the lower percentage, 10% in this case. Finally, one of the ramps was adjusted to account for the unbalanced segment growth (10 vs. 12%). Once ramp volumes were determined, a distribution model similar to that used for the existing condition was applied to create O/D tables, carrying all calibration adjustments from the existing year. In addition to the mainline traffic growth between existing and future years predicted by the RivTAM model, traffic was increased to reflect the expectation of fewer mainline bypass trips. In existing conditions, some motorists avoid segments of the heavily congested SR 91 freeway in favor of using local roads as bypasses. However the existing and future travel demand model forecasts do not see that level of bypass trips during the PM peak period as evidenced by difference in calibration levels. Figure 6-26 presents the percentage difference between PM peak period global traffic predicted by the 2010 RivTAM travel demand model and mainline demand compiled from existing ramp and mainline traffic counts. For the segments between SR 241 and the Riverside/Orange County Line, and through I-15, the demand model differs from balanced demand by less than 2 percent. Both segments, and especially SR 91 from SR 241 to the County Line, serve as regional pinch-points where few or no RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Micro-Simulation Model May 9, 2012 6.27 alternatives exist. However for locations between the County Line and I-15, where vehicles are able to exit the SR 91 freeway and use local bypass links for their trips, the model overestimates freeway traffic. This data may be indicative of the demand model keeping trips on the SR 91 freeway where in reality vehicles may be exiting the road, or avoiding entering because of congestion. In the future, general purpose and Express Lane improvements would add capacity to the corridor, and it is assumed that the level of bypass trips will decline. Figure 6-26 SR 91 Eastbound, RivTAM Model Global Traffic vs. Actual Balanced Demand, 3 -7 PM The future O/D matrix assumes a lower growth rate for trips exiting the eastbound general purpose lanes and a higher rate of growth for trips entering the lanes. The net result is an increase in PM peak period eastbound mainline demand at a rate of 1.1 percent per year rather than 0.9 percent per year. Table 6-12 and Table 6-13 present O/D matrices for the 2035 by 2020 network and 2035 by 2035 network scenarios. -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%241 to CLThrough Green RiverGreen River to SR 71Through 7171 to Serfas ClubThrough Serfas ClubSerfas Club to MapleThrough MapleMaple to LincolnThrough LincolnLincoln to 2ndThrough MainMain to I-15Through I15% Difference, RivTAM Travel Demand Model vs Balanced Demand RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Micro-Simulation Model May 9, 2012 6.28 Table 6-12 2035 by 2020 Network O/D Matrix, 2-7 PM Table 6-13 2035 by 2035 Network O/D Matrix, 2-7 PM 6.4.3 Car Following Model Simulation Parameters Future year simulations use the same car following parameters developed in the existing conditions model. However individual links were re-classified as hard curves, heavy weaves, or basic freeway if warranted by observations of initial simulation results. Heavy weaving behavior was applied to links previously assumed as basic freeway if traffic growth resulted in hig h weaving activity and high congestion. For example, the westbound GP lanes approaching I -15 and eastbound GP lanes approaching the SR 71 exit ramp are now classified as a “heavy weave” (slightly lower headway and more aggressive lane changing behavior) due to the increase in approach traffic and weaving. Such changes are believed to result in more realistic lane changing. 6.4.4 Managed Lanes Coefficients and Tolls Existing conditions managed use lane toll coefficients were used in the simulation of future traffic. Eastbound Orange County SR 91 Express Lane toll coefficients were used to model Origin/Destination West of SR-55 SR-55 B'twn SR-55 & SR-241 SR-241 Green River & SR-71 B'twn SR-71 & I-15 I-15 North I-15 South East of I-15 Total West of SR-55 8,100 9,750 12,400 50 2,400 4,450 1,300 2,900 4,850 41,350 SR-55 12,850 0 10,400 0 3,200 3,950 3,550 2,800 6,350 36,750 B'twn SR-55 & SR-241 11,750 12,900 2,250 2,200 3,600 3,750 1,600 1,600 3,650 39,650 SR-241 900 50 4,950 0 4,900 2,250 1,550 1,350 4,900 15,950 Green River & SR-71 2,100 1,750 3,500 1,350 4,550 3,350 250 2,300 1,000 19,150 B'twn SR-71 & I-15 2,550 1,550 2,150 450 7,150 1,250 3,200 6,050 11,700 24,350 I-15 North 1,950 2,300 1,900 950 450 4,800 17,900 20,700 6,650 50,950 I-15 South 3,250 2,900 2,100 1,100 2,400 4,000 17,600 28,700 8,850 62,050 East of I-15 5,650 4,450 2,200 2,100 2,000 8,000 5,800 7,150 14,050 37,350 Total 43,450 31,200 39,650 6,100 28,650 27,800 46,950 66,400 47,950 290,200 Origin/Destination West of SR-55 SR-55 B'twn SR-55 & SR-241 SR-241 Green River & SR-71 B'twn SR-71 & I-15 I-15 North I-15 South East of I-15 Total West of SR-55 7,950 12,300 15,000 400 2,350 4,100 1,250 2,250 3,550 45,600 SR-55 12,200 0 6,550 0 3,550 3,950 1,700 4,400 8,250 32,350 B'twn SR-55 & SR-241 12,050 13,750 2,200 1,300 3,550 4,200 1,300 1,550 3,250 39,900 SR-241 900 100 3,900 0 6,350 2,600 2,200 1,650 3,350 17,700 Green River & SR-71 3,050 2,150 4,450 2,400 1,450 3,700 500 2,250 700 19,950 B'twn SR-71 & I-15 2,500 1,750 1,450 850 8,300 950 4,000 3,950 11,250 23,750 I-15 North 1,550 2,950 1,550 1,400 250 4,750 14,750 18,250 4,250 45,450 I-15 South 3,000 3,150 1,450 1,050 4,300 3,000 15,600 30,350 5,650 61,900 East of I-15 3,750 4,550 1,450 2,000 2,250 8,850 4,050 5,000 11,050 31,900 Total 43,200 36,150 36,550 7,400 30,100 27,250 41,300 64,650 40,250 286,600 RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Micro-Simulation Model May 9, 2012 6.29 Riverside County’s eastbound SR 91 Express Lanes and southbound I-15 Express Lanes. Westbound Orange County SR 91 Express Lane coefficients were used to model Riverside County’s westbound SR 91 Express Lanes and northbound I-15 Express Lanes. Riverside County SR 91 Express Lane tolls from the enhanced toll case spreadsheet model were used for initial simulation tests, but were increased if demand was too high to ensure hig h travel speeds, or decreased if demand was lower than levels predicted by the market share model. Resulting rates are presented in the forecast results section of this chapter. 6.4.5 Future Model Results, 2035 by 2020 Scenario In the 2035 by 2020 network scenario, higher eastbound through tolls were required to keep express lanes demand at levels that would allow travel speeds to be maintained at high levels (greater than 45 mph). Eastbound traffic levels were limited to about 2,500 vehicles per hour during much of the PM peak period. Eastbound traffic on the RCXL mainline limited by capacity of the EB through movement, which was able to handle at most 1,700 vehicles per hour before operations deteriorated due to congestion and weaving. Overall EB express lane s peeds from start to end were above 50 mph through the modeled period for both destinations except for the 5 to 6 PM hour where eastbound speeds declined to 49 miles per hour. Capacity of the eastbound through movement is heavily dependent on downstream ope rations east of the express lanes eastern terminus. Heavy congestion to the east due to HOV/HOT weaving and/or the eastbound lane drop east of McKinley could possibly degrade express lane speeds. Figure 6-27 2035 by 2020 Network Scenario, Eastbound from Green River Road to I -15 2.4 3.7 13.4 24.4 27.4 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 2-3 PM3-4 PM4-5 PM5-6 PM6-7 PMTime Savings (mins)Speed (mph)SR 91 EB: Green River Road to I-15 Time Savings Target Speed GP Express RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Micro-Simulation Model May 9, 2012 6.30 Figure 6-28 2035 by 2020 Network Scenario, Eastbound from Green River Road to Ontario Avenue Table 6-14 shows Express and general purpose lane speeds on the eastbound SR 91. Heavy congestion develops on the eastbound general purpose lanes, originating from the lane drop at McKinley and Pierce Streets. Congestion at these locations spills back on the general purpose lanes to Serfas Club Drive. Vehicles at the east end of the Riverside County Express Lanes occasionally experience congestion from vehicles merging in front of them to access the HOV lanes at McKinley, or from Express Lane vehicles merging into the congested general purpose lanes. Toward the end of the PM peak period, queuing from I -15 SB spills back onto the SR 91 mainline and creates queues that spill back as far as Green River Road. 2.9 3.1 9.9 23.0 29.5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 2-3 PM3-4 PM4-5 PM5-6 PM6-7 PMTime Savings (mins)Speed (mph)SR 91 EB: Green River Road to Ontario Avenue Time Savings Target Speed GP Express RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Micro-Simulation Model May 9, 2012 6.31 Table 6-14 EB HOT and GP Lane Speeds, 2035 by 2020 Network Express Lanes Speed Legend, Red, <25 mph, Yellow, 25-50 mph, Green, 50+ mph HOx Lanes 55 55 to Lakevi ew Lakevi ew Lakevi ew- Imperia l Imperia l Imperia l-Weir Weir Weir- 241off 241 Gypsu m Gypsu m- 241on 241 HOT on to End 241on- HOT End HOT mixing HOT End- Green HOT end to HOT Narrow Green Green- SR71 SR 71 SR71 SR71- HOVmi x HOVmi x HOVmi x- Serfas Serfas Serfas- Maple Maple Maple- HOVmix HOVmix- Lincoln Lincoln Lincoln- 2nd 2nd Main Main- I15off I15off- I15SBon through 15, w/o SB ON through 15, e/ o SB ON- END HOVmix HOVmix- McKinley McKinley HOV McKinley HOV HOVmix HOVmix- Pierce Pierce Exit 0 771 279 106 108 110 112 114 116 139 118 118 146 121 62 32 804 151 125 126 126 165 165 175 127 181 128 129 129 447 196 201 130 131 101 223 222 225 167 239 569 247 571 254 258 2:05 PM 65 65 64 63 64 65 64 64 63 64 64 61 62 60 61 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 60 62 61 59 59 59 60 57 56 52 58 57 59 59 48 53 41 58 30 58 58 49 2:10 PM 61 63 63 63 64 63 64 64 63 64 64 62 62 59 61 63 63 62 62 62 61 61 60 61 61 60 61 61 61 61 62 55 60 61 60 56 48 52 34 57 33 58 57 44 2:15 PM 62 63 63 64 63 63 60 63 62 61 61 60 61 59 60 62 63 62 62 62 62 62 61 63 63 61 60 60 60 60 62 59 60 58 60 58 47 52 39 58 48 56 58 43 2:20 PM 62 65 64 65 63 63 63 63 62 63 63 60 60 59 60 61 61 62 59 59 60 60 61 61 62 61 61 61 62 61 62 55 61 60 52 61 51 51 45 57 32 59 58 45 2:25 PM 62 65 64 62 63 63 64 64 62 63 63 59 61 59 61 61 62 60 61 61 59 59 61 60 59 59 59 59 59 57 59 55 57 58 60 60 50 52 40 54 27 57 55 44 2:30 PM 65 65 63 62 62 63 63 62 64 62 62 59 61 59 60 62 62 61 61 61 61 61 61 60 61 61 58 58 61 59 60 51 61 57 57 57 47 52 41 54 31 59 58 47 2:35 PM 65 65 64 64 63 63 62 63 65 64 64 61 61 58 61 60 62 62 62 62 61 61 62 62 62 61 60 60 61 60 59 54 60 58 59 59 46 54 50 56 29 57 57 44 2:40 PM 64 64 63 63 63 62 64 63 64 63 63 62 62 58 61 61 62 60 60 60 59 59 60 61 60 61 61 61 61 61 60 55 60 58 58 58 49 49 34 57 29 58 58 46 2:45 PM 64 64 64 64 62 63 64 63 63 63 63 60 62 59 61 62 61 63 62 62 62 62 60 61 60 57 62 62 60 59 54 49 58 59 57 57 47 52 40 57 33 59 57 46 2:50 PM 62 63 63 64 63 64 61 64 63 61 61 59 61 60 61 59 62 61 60 60 59 59 62 61 61 61 61 61 62 62 62 52 54 58 60 59 50 54 36 57 28 59 58 46 2:55 PM 63 65 64 63 63 62 63 63 63 63 63 62 61 59 61 62 63 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 59 62 59 59 59 58 54 48 58 60 55 58 45 49 38 56 25 59 58 46 3:00 PM 62 65 64 64 63 63 63 63 63 62 62 61 61 59 60 63 62 62 62 62 61 61 61 60 59 61 61 61 60 59 61 56 53 50 60 57 45 52 34 56 28 56 55 44 3:05 PM 63 64 64 63 64 64 63 63 64 62 62 61 62 60 60 61 61 62 60 60 61 61 61 60 61 61 61 61 61 59 62 56 59 59 57 59 47 52 35 57 27 57 57 42 3:10 PM 63 65 64 63 62 64 63 63 64 64 64 60 61 60 61 63 63 59 61 61 61 61 60 61 61 59 60 60 61 61 61 54 61 58 58 59 50 52 39 57 28 54 52 44 3:15 PM 63 64 64 64 63 64 63 63 64 63 63 61 61 61 61 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 62 62 62 61 61 61 61 60 61 53 59 58 54 60 47 53 36 56 28 55 52 41 3:20 PM 65 65 64 62 62 63 63 63 62 64 64 59 62 60 61 62 63 62 62 62 62 62 62 63 62 62 62 62 61 61 61 55 58 59 58 57 49 31 40 57 29 58 56 45 3:25 PM 62 63 64 62 64 63 64 64 63 63 63 61 61 60 60 62 63 62 62 62 61 61 60 60 61 60 61 61 62 61 63 56 60 59 56 59 45 22 33 55 30 54 53 46 3:30 PM 65 65 64 63 61 62 61 60 63 64 64 55 61 58 61 62 62 62 62 62 62 62 62 60 62 60 59 59 61 59 60 56 60 59 58 59 45 23 38 57 27 53 47 44 3:35 PM 64 64 63 63 63 64 63 61 62 63 63 60 61 59 61 62 63 63 63 63 62 62 61 61 60 60 61 61 60 61 62 53 60 58 58 60 46 22 34 57 31 53 58 44 3:40 PM 64 64 64 63 62 62 62 64 63 63 63 57 61 60 61 62 62 61 61 61 60 60 61 60 61 61 60 60 59 60 60 54 60 59 58 56 21 22 38 57 28 46 32 42 3:45 PM 62 63 62 63 63 62 60 60 63 61 61 58 61 58 61 62 62 62 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 60 60 61 59 59 49 59 58 48 38 26 23 28 57 29 58 51 43 3:50 PM 62 63 63 61 60 62 61 62 62 62 62 57 60 59 61 62 62 61 61 61 61 61 60 62 61 62 62 62 61 60 56 52 45 42 37 34 21 23 47 57 28 49 46 39 3:55 PM 60 64 62 62 60 60 61 61 60 61 61 53 59 59 61 61 63 60 60 60 61 61 59 59 61 60 60 60 60 61 61 53 49 40 16 18 24 24 39 56 30 49 42 43 4:00 PM 58 64 62 62 63 62 61 62 62 60 60 54 59 58 61 61 63 63 62 62 61 61 60 62 62 61 60 60 57 59 59 54 35 36 25 24 24 26 50 56 27 57 50 44 4:05 PM 62 63 60 62 60 61 59 58 62 61 61 50 57 57 61 62 63 61 63 63 61 61 62 62 62 61 62 62 62 60 62 58 36 34 25 34 31 24 34 56 29 41 38 46 4:10 PM 62 64 63 62 64 63 61 61 63 62 62 44 45 58 61 63 62 62 62 62 61 61 61 62 62 62 61 61 60 60 61 57 42 46 39 31 24 24 40 56 28 37 39 39 4:15 PM 61 64 64 63 63 61 63 64 63 62 62 57 23 59 60 62 62 62 60 60 59 59 62 61 62 63 62 62 62 63 63 59 60 54 33 20 22 23 46 53 28 52 48 39 4:20 PM 62 64 64 63 63 63 62 63 61 62 62 60 32 56 60 62 63 62 62 62 62 62 62 61 61 62 61 61 61 61 60 59 59 58 55 36 23 24 46 54 28 59 57 45 4:25 PM 61 65 64 65 63 62 62 64 63 62 62 60 59 59 60 62 63 62 61 61 62 62 62 62 62 61 62 62 61 61 60 57 56 56 60 55 23 23 43 57 28 59 51 43 4:30 PM 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 62 64 63 63 61 60 60 61 62 62 62 62 62 60 60 60 58 60 60 61 61 62 61 61 57 60 60 58 38 22 24 45 56 29 59 57 45 4:35 PM 64 64 63 63 62 62 63 62 63 64 64 60 56 59 61 61 61 61 60 60 60 60 61 61 60 62 61 61 61 61 62 49 59 56 46 25 26 25 44 54 30 55 59 48 4:40 PM 63 63 63 62 62 62 64 62 60 62 62 53 60 56 60 61 61 60 62 62 60 60 62 61 61 61 61 61 61 60 60 53 56 50 34 36 22 25 45 56 29 51 50 51 4:45 PM 63 64 63 62 63 63 62 61 62 62 62 59 60 58 60 62 62 61 59 59 59 59 60 60 60 61 59 59 59 60 61 57 59 47 21 20 28 25 35 56 28 58 58 47 4:50 PM 63 63 63 62 60 63 63 62 62 63 63 53 60 59 61 61 62 60 62 62 61 61 60 59 60 60 61 61 59 60 62 54 58 58 47 35 20 22 46 57 29 44 40 43 4:55 PM 61 64 64 63 63 62 62 59 60 62 62 54 60 56 61 61 61 61 61 61 60 60 58 59 60 58 60 60 61 60 59 56 57 43 17 19 23 23 32 56 28 44 45 41 5:00 PM 61 61 60 59 60 61 62 62 63 63 63 55 40 57 61 58 60 58 59 59 59 59 60 60 60 59 60 60 59 58 59 50 37 37 24 29 23 23 39 56 27 56 41 40 5:05 PM 61 64 60 62 61 62 60 61 61 60 60 54 22 58 61 61 61 61 61 61 59 59 58 58 61 59 58 58 61 59 47 33 40 40 23 19 21 24 53 57 26 59 56 44 5:10 PM 63 64 62 63 63 62 62 62 61 60 60 32 21 56 61 61 61 60 59 59 60 60 60 61 60 60 59 59 60 58 19 19 33 35 16 15 23 25 47 57 27 55 51 45 5:15 PM 65 65 64 61 61 63 62 63 63 62 62 22 22 58 61 61 61 59 59 59 59 59 60 60 61 61 60 60 60 62 15 17 21 26 18 20 21 24 49 55 31 57 58 50 5:20 PM 64 64 63 61 64 63 63 63 62 62 62 21 21 57 61 61 61 61 61 61 60 60 59 59 58 59 57 57 55 52 48 19 35 38 17 18 23 26 46 57 28 54 42 46 5:25 PM 63 64 64 63 63 63 63 63 63 62 62 23 22 58 60 62 62 62 61 61 60 60 59 60 59 59 58 58 59 59 58 24 37 38 21 25 23 23 39 57 25 56 50 50 5:30 PM 63 62 61 61 63 61 63 63 63 54 54 22 21 55 61 62 63 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 62 62 62 61 60 61 54 41 38 21 18 22 25 49 57 29 43 42 45 5:35 PM 64 65 62 64 63 58 62 62 62 29 29 21 20 56 61 60 61 60 61 61 59 59 59 61 61 61 62 62 61 62 61 58 59 55 28 22 24 21 36 56 31 58 51 49 5:40 PM 62 64 64 63 64 64 61 64 59 18 18 19 20 56 61 62 62 61 61 61 60 60 61 61 60 59 59 59 60 61 61 56 60 60 61 54 20 27 38 55 28 59 58 49 5:45 PM 64 64 62 61 63 63 63 64 60 18 18 21 21 55 61 61 59 60 59 59 59 59 59 60 59 60 61 61 61 61 62 59 59 59 59 60 39 31 33 57 27 58 58 46 5:50 PM 63 64 64 63 63 63 54 61 54 18 18 22 21 58 61 61 63 62 60 60 59 59 59 60 60 59 59 59 61 60 59 56 58 59 58 58 42 21 33 54 27 41 37 42 5:55 PM 63 64 63 62 61 62 62 62 17 16 16 21 21 57 61 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 62 61 61 61 60 60 59 60 58 59 58 60 59 59 47 22 31 57 27 34 41 36 6:00 PM 62 61 62 62 62 60 62 62 21 20 20 21 21 57 61 61 61 60 59 59 60 60 61 62 61 61 61 61 60 58 60 56 60 55 59 55 51 22 33 56 29 48 50 38 6:05 PM 63 63 62 63 62 62 61 62 21 22 22 22 21 57 61 62 62 61 60 60 60 60 61 61 61 60 60 60 61 61 61 56 58 55 59 58 34 27 34 57 31 59 51 42 6:10 PM 63 64 62 63 61 60 63 60 18 18 18 21 21 56 61 61 61 61 60 60 60 60 62 61 62 59 60 60 60 61 59 59 59 60 57 61 57 25 45 55 31 57 55 45 6:15 PM 63 63 62 61 61 62 62 21 18 20 20 21 21 56 60 61 62 61 60 60 61 61 60 59 60 59 59 59 61 61 60 51 60 59 56 60 62 34 63 55 31 58 56 47 6:20 PM 63 63 62 61 62 61 60 21 18 19 19 22 21 52 61 61 63 61 60 60 59 59 61 59 59 57 60 60 60 61 62 59 60 59 59 57 62 63 55 57 32 57 56 55 6:25 PM 64 63 63 63 64 62 49 17 19 21 21 22 23 52 60 60 61 59 59 59 58 58 60 60 60 60 58 58 60 60 60 58 59 58 59 55 62 63 53 56 38 58 57 60 6:30 PM 63 63 62 63 62 62 18 22 24 24 24 22 20 53 61 59 61 61 60 60 62 62 61 61 60 59 60 60 61 61 60 55 60 57 57 57 64 63 60 54 62 58 58 60 6:35 PM 63 64 63 63 62 61 21 25 25 24 24 21 22 57 61 60 61 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 59 60 60 60 60 61 59 58 59 58 60 56 64 64 54 56 62 51 58 60 6:40 PM 56 63 62 56 62 60 25 23 22 23 23 22 20 58 61 55 59 59 60 60 60 60 61 61 60 61 61 61 61 61 61 55 60 57 59 60 56 59 53 56 62 58 57 61 6:45 PM 64 64 62 62 61 60 22 23 23 23 23 22 23 52 62 49 57 59 60 60 58 58 59 59 61 56 58 58 58 59 57 47 59 59 56 58 59 59 61 56 57 55 58 56 6:50 PM 63 64 63 63 63 61 23 22 30 29 29 22 21 52 62 56 57 60 58 58 59 59 59 57 58 57 58 58 58 55 35 43 60 59 59 57 52 49 30 56 59 55 55 57 6:55 PM 60 62 63 62 62 62 25 29 25 23 23 21 21 53 62 56 55 58 58 58 59 59 57 59 59 57 57 57 43 23 25 42 52 47 49 45 52 56 41 57 57 52 57 55 7:00 PM 60 62 62 60 62 46 30 22 22 24 24 22 21 52 58 57 59 60 59 59 59 59 56 58 59 57 47 47 28 28 25 42 52 53 54 60 48 51 35 56 55 56 56 48 RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Micro-Simulation Model May 9, 2012 6.32 Table 6-15 (cont.) EB HOT and GP Lane Speeds, 2035 by 2020 Network General Purpose Lanes Speed Legend, Red, <25 mph, Yellow, 25-50 mph, Green, 50+ mph GP Lanes WEST OF Tustin Tustin to 55 55 55 - Lakevi ew Lakevi ew Lakevi ew- Imperia l Imperia l Imperia l-Weir Weir Weir- 241off 241 Gypsu m Gypsu m- 241on 241on- HOT End HOT End HOT End- Green HOT End- Green Green Green Green- SR71 SR71 CD off to On SR71 SR71- HOVmi x HOVmi x HOVmi x- Serfas Serfas Serfas- Maple Maple Maple- Lincoln Maple- Lincoln Lincoln Lincoln- 2nd 2nd Main Main- ExI15off MainCD On to 15on I15SBon- I15NBon HOT Mixing Area e/o15 HOT Mix w/o McKinley HOT Mix to McKinley McKinley HOVmix HOVmix HOVmix- Pierce Pierce Exit 0 623 707 768 30 31 45 50 36 54 12 135 58 141 27 62 32 32 157 311 71 889 76 161 161 171 80 176 84 88 88 184 188 197 203 103 215 96 225 167 235 240 244 247 251 255 258 2:05 PM 57 57 58 57 57 59 58 59 60 58 57 59 59 54 60 61 61 59 58 60 60 60 61 61 61 57 53 26 56 56 46 61 52 51 47 45 46 48 53 49 53 44 30 32 37 49 2:10 PM 58 57 58 58 58 60 59 59 60 58 58 59 58 57 59 61 61 59 58 59 60 59 60 60 61 59 47 29 56 56 46 61 51 51 47 43 43 48 52 50 51 48 33 30 42 44 2:15 PM 57 57 58 58 58 59 59 58 59 58 52 59 58 56 59 60 60 60 59 60 60 60 61 61 62 58 43 25 55 55 49 61 53 51 50 42 44 47 52 49 50 45 48 33 41 43 2:20 PM 57 57 58 58 59 60 59 59 60 58 58 58 59 55 59 60 60 60 59 60 61 60 60 60 61 59 35 28 57 57 49 62 53 50 52 41 37 51 51 48 51 41 32 33 43 45 2:25 PM 58 56 58 56 57 59 59 59 60 59 59 59 58 35 59 61 61 60 58 59 60 59 60 60 61 57 32 25 54 54 45 61 53 52 49 35 26 50 52 49 51 29 27 30 37 44 2:30 PM 58 58 58 58 58 60 58 58 59 59 57 58 58 34 59 60 60 56 59 59 60 60 60 60 61 59 30 26 53 53 43 61 50 50 46 39 30 47 52 50 52 29 31 32 41 47 2:35 PM 58 56 58 57 57 59 58 59 60 60 58 59 57 27 58 61 61 59 59 59 60 60 61 61 61 59 27 25 33 33 42 60 53 50 49 34 27 46 54 50 53 27 29 28 39 44 2:40 PM 58 57 57 58 58 60 59 59 59 59 57 59 58 26 58 61 61 60 59 60 60 60 60 60 61 60 22 26 31 31 44 61 52 51 48 43 35 49 49 45 41 24 29 34 42 46 2:45 PM 57 57 58 58 58 59 59 59 59 59 58 59 58 24 59 61 61 60 60 60 60 60 61 61 61 57 22 26 49 49 43 60 50 51 51 45 47 47 52 47 26 28 33 32 37 46 2:50 PM 57 56 58 58 58 60 59 59 60 59 58 59 59 24 60 61 61 59 59 56 60 60 61 61 62 54 23 23 52 52 45 61 50 49 44 42 45 50 54 50 22 27 28 31 43 46 2:55 PM 58 56 57 58 58 59 58 59 59 58 58 58 48 25 59 61 61 60 59 60 61 60 60 60 61 44 23 28 53 53 46 61 52 49 46 42 40 45 49 45 28 24 25 29 40 46 3:00 PM 58 57 58 58 58 60 59 59 59 56 58 58 26 25 59 60 60 60 59 60 60 60 61 61 61 26 24 26 52 52 45 60 51 52 47 41 36 45 52 48 20 24 28 30 42 44 3:05 PM 58 57 58 58 59 60 59 59 59 60 58 59 23 24 60 60 60 59 58 59 59 59 60 60 60 22 22 29 37 37 40 60 51 51 52 45 47 47 52 34 19 26 27 31 36 42 3:10 PM 58 55 59 58 59 60 59 59 60 60 58 53 19 25 60 61 61 59 59 59 60 60 60 60 61 21 24 25 23 23 42 59 50 51 53 46 49 50 52 22 20 24 28 32 37 44 3:15 PM 58 55 59 58 58 60 58 59 60 59 54 16 20 26 61 61 61 60 59 60 60 60 61 61 61 22 22 26 45 45 45 61 53 50 46 41 42 47 53 21 19 26 28 30 39 41 3:20 PM 57 57 59 57 58 59 58 58 60 59 17 16 21 25 60 61 61 61 60 57 61 61 62 62 62 23 22 25 53 53 45 62 53 51 51 28 27 49 31 20 20 29 29 27 42 45 3:25 PM 58 55 58 58 58 60 59 59 59 52 16 17 21 24 60 60 60 60 60 61 62 61 62 62 62 21 23 25 55 55 45 62 49 50 43 23 25 45 22 20 20 27 30 29 42 46 3:30 PM 58 53 58 58 58 60 59 59 60 22 16 17 21 24 58 61 61 60 59 61 61 61 62 62 61 27 23 28 49 49 45 60 49 50 48 22 26 45 23 21 21 25 27 30 44 44 3:35 PM 58 56 59 58 58 60 59 59 60 20 16 15 19 26 59 61 61 60 60 60 61 61 62 62 62 43 23 26 52 52 46 62 53 49 47 20 25 46 22 18 18 30 31 33 39 44 3:40 PM 58 56 59 58 58 60 59 59 60 19 14 15 18 25 60 61 61 61 60 60 61 61 62 62 62 59 23 25 51 51 45 61 52 49 46 21 26 21 22 21 20 31 28 31 36 42 3:45 PM 57 51 59 58 59 60 60 59 60 17 16 15 18 23 58 61 61 60 60 60 62 62 62 62 63 61 23 28 53 53 47 62 51 49 45 17 24 26 23 19 20 29 29 31 38 43 3:50 PM 58 55 59 59 59 60 59 59 61 17 14 15 17 24 59 61 61 60 60 60 61 61 62 62 62 60 51 26 55 55 46 62 48 49 48 19 25 21 23 19 20 28 28 32 40 39 3:55 PM 57 51 58 58 58 59 59 59 60 13 14 15 17 23 59 61 61 60 60 59 60 61 62 62 62 61 58 26 56 56 47 62 51 50 21 17 23 24 24 20 20 31 30 30 35 43 4:00 PM 58 55 59 59 59 60 60 60 60 12 13 14 17 23 58 61 61 60 59 61 61 61 62 62 63 61 61 33 58 58 45 61 53 48 15 17 23 24 26 24 22 25 27 30 39 44 4:05 PM 55 56 59 56 58 60 59 60 60 12 13 15 17 23 57 61 61 61 61 59 62 62 62 62 62 61 60 29 61 61 50 62 52 32 14 17 24 31 24 20 20 27 29 32 44 46 4:10 PM 57 54 58 58 58 59 58 58 49 11 12 13 16 22 58 61 61 61 60 53 61 61 62 62 62 62 62 31 61 61 52 63 52 25 16 21 22 24 24 19 19 30 28 33 39 39 4:15 PM 57 55 59 57 58 59 59 58 12 11 13 14 17 24 59 60 60 60 59 59 62 62 62 62 63 61 61 28 60 60 50 62 50 19 16 17 18 22 23 20 20 27 28 29 35 39 4:20 PM 57 55 58 57 58 59 58 58 11 10 12 13 15 23 56 60 60 60 60 61 62 61 62 62 62 59 60 29 60 60 49 62 32 15 14 16 15 23 24 18 21 26 28 28 39 45 4:25 PM 57 54 57 57 57 59 58 58 11 11 12 13 16 23 59 60 60 60 60 60 61 61 62 62 63 60 61 29 60 60 43 40 13 16 14 17 18 23 23 17 18 29 28 35 42 43 4:30 PM 57 55 58 57 58 59 58 58 11 11 13 14 17 23 60 61 61 61 60 60 61 61 62 62 63 61 62 31 42 42 30 28 14 14 15 17 16 22 24 21 21 27 29 31 40 45 4:35 PM 57 53 58 57 58 60 58 59 12 12 12 13 16 23 59 61 61 61 60 57 61 61 62 62 62 61 62 34 18 18 22 24 23 17 14 16 16 26 25 20 19 30 30 31 40 48 4:40 PM 56 55 59 58 57 60 58 31 11 11 13 14 16 25 56 60 60 60 60 58 62 60 61 61 62 61 61 21 15 15 16 17 23 18 15 19 19 22 25 21 20 24 29 34 46 51 4:45 PM 58 56 59 57 58 60 59 14 11 12 13 13 16 23 58 60 60 60 60 60 62 62 62 62 63 60 37 14 14 14 16 14 17 37 14 16 16 28 25 17 19 30 28 30 42 47 4:50 PM 55 55 59 57 58 60 58 14 12 10 13 14 16 24 59 61 61 61 60 60 61 61 62 62 63 48 17 16 15 15 13 21 17 46 48 17 18 20 22 19 21 28 29 32 45 43 4:55 PM 58 56 59 59 58 59 26 16 11 11 13 14 16 23 56 61 61 61 59 61 61 62 62 62 57 18 18 18 15 15 18 27 20 46 50 15 15 23 23 19 20 31 28 28 44 41 5:00 PM 57 56 58 58 58 60 14 15 12 12 13 15 16 24 57 61 61 61 60 61 62 62 62 62 23 18 20 20 31 31 37 32 29 36 32 16 18 23 23 18 19 26 27 29 34 40 5:05 PM 57 56 59 58 58 60 14 16 12 12 13 15 17 24 58 61 61 58 60 60 62 62 62 62 18 18 21 24 49 49 43 60 43 24 14 16 16 21 24 18 20 29 26 29 33 44 5:10 PM 57 56 60 59 59 43 15 15 12 11 14 14 16 24 56 61 61 60 60 60 62 62 58 58 22 19 21 25 53 53 46 63 49 21 14 15 15 23 25 19 19 27 27 27 45 45 5:15 PM 57 54 58 58 58 12 14 18 12 12 13 14 15 23 58 61 61 60 59 58 62 62 62 62 24 24 24 28 54 54 48 62 37 20 14 16 16 21 24 20 19 25 31 32 48 50 5:20 PM 58 54 60 57 58 14 16 18 12 12 14 14 17 23 57 61 61 60 60 59 61 61 61 61 32 22 25 26 59 59 50 48 21 15 15 17 16 23 26 17 19 29 28 33 48 46 5:25 PM 58 55 59 56 26 14 16 17 12 12 14 14 16 22 58 60 60 61 59 60 61 62 62 62 60 22 23 27 48 48 35 38 12 13 14 17 16 23 23 18 21 23 25 25 47 50 5:30 PM 58 53 58 27 16 15 17 18 12 13 13 14 15 24 55 61 61 60 59 61 62 62 62 62 62 48 23 28 17 17 23 25 13 18 14 17 17 22 25 18 17 25 29 31 41 45 5:35 PM 58 48 59 20 17 15 16 20 12 11 13 14 15 24 56 61 61 61 60 58 62 61 61 61 63 60 22 19 15 15 19 20 14 20 15 17 17 24 21 16 36 29 31 32 42 49 5:40 PM 58 54 55 20 17 17 17 19 11 11 13 14 16 22 56 61 61 60 60 60 62 61 62 62 62 44 18 15 22 22 15 13 23 37 14 16 16 20 27 36 32 25 28 30 42 49 5:45 PM 58 52 18 21 18 22 17 18 11 11 13 14 16 22 55 61 61 59 59 54 61 61 62 62 57 16 19 19 18 18 14 14 23 43 15 17 19 39 31 18 19 25 27 29 38 46 5:50 PM 58 48 20 21 20 21 17 17 12 11 12 13 15 22 58 61 61 60 60 56 61 61 62 62 24 17 17 17 14 14 18 23 25 37 14 19 21 42 21 19 19 24 27 29 42 42 5:55 PM 58 55 25 24 19 15 15 15 12 11 13 13 16 24 57 61 61 60 60 57 62 61 61 61 17 16 18 19 36 36 23 17 13 44 29 20 21 47 22 19 18 24 27 32 37 36 6:00 PM 58 52 47 22 16 18 14 17 12 12 13 14 16 23 57 61 61 60 60 55 62 61 42 42 20 20 23 24 24 24 12 9 10 40 62 18 23 51 22 20 20 29 29 35 36 38 6:05 PM 58 55 59 21 19 16 15 18 11 12 14 14 16 23 57 61 61 60 60 61 62 62 20 20 25 23 22 22 12 12 10 10 11 37 59 46 33 34 27 24 22 28 31 32 37 42 6:10 PM 58 58 57 23 17 14 17 17 12 11 13 14 16 24 56 61 61 61 60 61 62 62 24 24 25 20 13 11 12 12 14 12 10 42 61 53 54 57 25 17 27 27 31 34 39 45 6:15 PM 58 57 60 17 16 14 15 17 11 11 13 14 15 23 56 60 60 60 59 60 62 62 55 55 18 12 13 13 14 14 12 11 12 48 64 61 59 62 34 35 32 29 31 35 38 47 6:20 PM 58 58 59 19 17 14 28 17 12 12 13 14 17 23 52 61 61 60 60 59 62 62 12 12 14 14 15 15 13 13 11 11 11 41 59 62 55 62 63 59 33 31 32 34 44 55 6:25 PM 57 58 59 19 16 17 42 16 11 11 13 14 17 23 52 60 60 61 59 58 62 47 14 14 14 16 14 13 11 11 9 8 11 40 62 62 54 62 63 61 64 47 38 38 54 60 6:30 PM 58 58 59 26 20 16 19 18 11 11 14 14 18 23 53 61 61 61 60 60 61 14 13 13 13 13 12 10 9 9 18 8 7 16 57 55 46 64 63 64 64 63 62 59 59 60 6:35 PM 58 56 59 22 19 18 15 17 11 13 14 14 18 23 57 61 61 61 60 61 26 14 12 12 12 11 9 8 9 9 11 5 17 26 55 60 52 64 64 65 65 62 62 61 59 60 6:40 PM 58 57 59 43 20 25 15 18 11 11 13 14 17 23 58 61 61 61 61 58 13 12 11 11 9 8 10 11 9 9 22 13 27 24 57 50 54 56 59 57 62 60 62 62 61 61 6:45 PM 58 58 60 60 46 21 15 18 12 11 13 14 17 22 52 62 62 62 61 40 11 10 8 8 12 13 10 12 20 20 41 10 12 30 58 54 54 59 59 57 57 55 57 54 49 56 6:50 PM 58 58 59 59 59 15 16 18 12 11 11 14 19 22 52 62 62 61 58 10 10 9 10 10 11 17 20 22 46 46 17 11 18 27 46 42 46 52 49 56 59 60 59 52 57 57 6:55 PM 58 57 59 59 59 27 23 19 11 12 12 14 18 24 53 62 62 43 12 13 10 11 14 14 20 26 34 25 28 28 31 26 27 27 35 20 26 52 56 54 57 54 57 48 51 55 7:00 PM 58 57 59 59 59 54 17 18 11 12 14 14 18 23 52 58 58 10 10 12 15 17 18 18 22 51 62 33 28 28 38 31 30 32 23 23 27 48 51 51 55 50 55 46 45 48 RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Micro-Simulation Model May 9, 2012 6.33 Traffic on the Riverside County eastbound express lanes are approximately 2,500 vehicles per hour from 2 to 6 PM, and then increase to above 3,100 vehicles from 6-7 PM. Congestion on the eastbound general purpose lanes increase during the last hour due to heavy queues from congestion on I-15 Southbound, and increase the demand for the Riverside County Express Lanes. Tolls for the eastbound through movement were elevated above market share model levels for the 3 PM to 4 PM hours to maintain traffic at levels that would maintain free flow. Tolls charged by the VISSIM model for the through movement average $9.54 in the 2 -7 PM period, while the market share model averages $5.12. Conversely, tolls for the movement to Ontario Avenue averaged $1.75 in the VISSIM model as opposed to $6.61 in the market share model. Tolls were reduced to stimulate demand for the movement. Figure 6-29 Express Lanes Distribution, 2035 by 2020 Network 2,557 2,527 2,485 2,526 3,132 1,682 1,647 1,574 1,342 1,612 865 841 872 1,236 1,347 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 2-3 PM 3-4 PM 4-5 PM 5-6 PM 6-7 PM Eastbound RCTC Express Lanes Distribution RCTC 91 XL RCTC 91 XL, through RCTC 91 XL, to 15 SB RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Micro-Simulation Model May 9, 2012 6.34 Table 6-16 Eastbound Express Lane VISSIM vs. Market Share Tolls, 2035 by 2020 Network 2 -7 PM The micro simulation model predicts the westbound express lanes would have light traffic and no operational problems. Speeds on both the general purpose and express lanes between the eastern terminus at I-15 and western terminus at Green River Road would be near 60 miles per hour throughout the PM peak period. Figure 6-30 2035 by 2020 Network Scenario, Westbound from I -15 to Green River Road Eastbound Through Eastbound to Ontario Volume Weighted Average Toll Charged (Toll Vehs)Toll Charged (Toll Vehs)Toll Charged (Toll Vehs) From To Vissim T&R model Vissim T&R model Vissim T&R model 2:00 PM 3:00 PM $3.47 $3.47 $1.25 $4.48 $2.70 $3.83 3:00 PM 4:00 PM $7.00 $4.54 $1.50 $5.86 $5.16 $5.03 4:00 PM 5:00 PM $9.50 $5.87 $2.00 $7.57 $6.77 $6.48 5:00 PM 6:00 PM $14.50 $5.87 $2.00 $7.57 $8.61 $6.49 6:00 PM 7:00 PM $13.25 $5.87 $2.00 $7.57 $7.82 $6.48 Average 2-7 PM $9.54 $5.12 $1.75 $6.61 $6.21 $5.66 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 2-3 PM 3-4 PM 4-5 PM 5-6 PM 6-7 PM Time Savings (mins)Speed (mph)SR 91 Westbound: I-15 to Green River Road Time Savings Target Speed GP Express RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Micro-Simulation Model May 9, 2012 6.35 Figure 6-31 2035 by 2020 Network Scenario, Westbound from Ontario Avenue to Green River Road Traffic on the westbound express lanes ranges from above 800 to just below 1,100 vehicles per hour. A greater share of traffic would originate from the mainline on SR 91, with a minority from the I-15 south direct connector ramp. 0.5 0.9 0.9 1.4 1.1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 2-3 PM 3-4 PM 4-5 PM 5-6 PM 6-7 PM Time Savings (mins)Speed (mph)SR 91 Westbound: Ontario Avenue to Green River Road Time Savings Target Speed GP Express RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Micro-Simulation Model May 9, 2012 6.36 Figure 6-32 Westbound Express Lanes Distribution, 2035 by 2020 Network Revenue Forecast The VISSIM micro simulation model predicts total 2-7 PM toll traffic lower than predicted by the market share model, but revenue that is slightly higher. In the micro simulation model, higher tolls were charged for vehicles traveling through on SR 91 past I -15. These higher rates support higher revenue at lower toll traffic levels. 1,079 835 948 808 972 794 603 640 447 578 289 226 317 339 393 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 2-3 PM 3-4 PM 4-5 PM 5-6 PM 6-7 PM Westbound RCTC Express Lanes Distribution RCTC 91 XL RCTC 91 XL, through RCTC 91 XL, via 15NB RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Micro-Simulation Model May 9, 2012 6.37 Figure 6-33 Express Lanes Toll Traffic, 2035 by 2020 Network Figure 6-34 Express Lanes Revenue, 2035 by 2020 Network RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Micro-Simulation Model May 9, 2012 6.38 Table 6-17 Express Lane Traffic and Revenue, 2035 by 2020 Network 2-7 PM * Average Toll charged excluding HOV3+ vehicles which are assumed toll free. SR 91 Eastbound Revenue, 2010$'s Average Toll Charged*Total Express Traffic From To Vissim T&R model Vissim T&R model Vissim T&R model 2:00 PM 3:00 PM $6,368 $8,448 $2.70 $3.83 2,491 2,471 3:00 PM 4:00 PM $11,643 $11,993 $5.16 $5.03 2,471 2,952 4:00 PM 5:00 PM $14,448 $15,315 $6.77 $6.48 2,439 3,121 5:00 PM 6:00 PM $19,588 $15,708 $8.61 $6.49 2,576 3,169 6:00 PM 7:00 PM $19,967 $15,631 $7.82 $6.48 2,888 3,135 Total 2-7 PM $72,013 $67,094 $6.21 $5.66 12,865 14,848 SR 91 Westbound Revenue, 2010$'s Average Toll Charged*Total Express Traffic From To Vissim T&R model Vissim T&R model Vissim T&R model 2:00 PM 3:00 PM $1,178 $1,265 $1.37 $1.50 1,117 981 3:00 PM 4:00 PM $1,246 $2,003 $1.98 $2.21 832 1,065 4:00 PM 5:00 PM $1,342 $2,663 $2.01 $2.21 931 1,400 5:00 PM 6:00 PM $1,137 $2,832 $2.01 $2.20 877 1,487 6:00 PM 7:00 PM $860 $1,007 $1.40 $1.50 924 834 Total 2-7 PM $5,762 $9,769 $1.75 $1.92 4,681 5,767 SR 91 EB &WB Revenu,2010$'s Average Toll Charged*Total Express Traffic From To Vissim T&R model Vissim T&R model Vissim T&R model 2:00 PM 3:00 PM $7,546 $9,712 $2.35 $3.18 3,608 3,452 3:00 PM 4:00 PM $12,889 $13,996 $4.46 $4.18 3,303 4,017 4:00 PM 5:00 PM $15,789 $17,978 $5.63 $4.82 3,370 4,521 5:00 PM 6:00 PM $20,725 $18,540 $7.29 $4.80 3,453 4,656 6:00 PM 7:00 PM $20,827 $16,637 $6.58 $5.14 3,812 3,969 Total 2-7 PM $77,775 $76,863 $5.21 $4.46 17,546 20,615 RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Micro-Simulation Model May 9, 2012 6.39 Figure 6-35 through Figure 6-39 illustrate traffic conditions predicted by the micro simulation model at various segments of the corridor at 4:40 PM. Figure 6-35 Orange County Express Lanes Egress Area, 4:40 PM Figure 6-36 Serfas Club Drive, 4:40 PM RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Micro-Simulation Model May 9, 2012 6.40 Figure 6-37 Lincoln Avenue, 4:40 PM Note: GP Congestion near Lincoln Avenue Figure 6-38 I-15 Interchange, 4:40 PM Note: Congestion from 91 EB to I-15 SB RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Micro-Simulation Model May 9, 2012 6.41 Figure 6-39 McKinley Street Approach, 4:40 PM Note: Congestion east of the 91 XL where corridor narrows 6.4.6 Future Model Results, 2035 by 2035 Network Results of the 2035 by 2035 network scenario show that congestion still occurs on SR 91 east of I-15 and on I-15 SB, but to a lesser degree. The decrease in congestion can be attr ibutable to a shift in travel patterns induced by the addition of CETAP. The reallocation results in more balance between demand and capacity. Additional GP lane capacity from the addition of GP lanes east of I-15 also improves congestion levels. To the west, between SR 241 and SR 71, an additional lane allows greater throughput from Orange County but does not translate to increased Riverside County congestion or Express demand because of the improvements in capacity and volume shifts. Travel Speeds and Traffic The greatest travel time savings are realized by Riverside County Express Lane users that are using the eastbound to I-15 southbound direct connector. Toward the end of the simulation period, the express lanes offer nearly a 20 minute time advantage over the general purpose lanes due to congestion on I-15 southbound. Express lane users traveling through on the eastbound express lanes realize little time savings but would travel at speeds that are 10 miles per hour faster than the general purpose lanes. RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Micro-Simulation Model May 9, 2012 6.42 Figure 6-40 Eastbound Speeds, 2035 by 2035 Network Scenario, Green River Road to I-15 Figure 6-41 Eastbound Speeds, 2035 by 2035 Network Scenario, Green River Road to Ontario Avenue The speed diagram shown in Table 6-18 show less congestion than predicted in the 2035 by 2020 network scenario. Queues form to the east of I -15, east of the express lanes eastern terminus, but the queues do not extend past I-15. High entry volumes from Maple and Lincoln Avenue result in low speeds on the general purpose lanes but for only a short distance. The Riverside County Express lanes experience fewer instances of low speeds due to the queuing east of I-15. 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.6 3.5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 2-3 PM3-4 PM4-5 PM5-6 PM6-7 PMTime Savings (mins)Speed (mph)SR 91 Eastbound: Green River Road to I-15 Time Savings Target Speed GP Express 2.0 3.1 12.9 18.4 19.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 2-3 PM3-4 PM4-5 PM5-6 PM6-7 PMTime Savings (mins)Speed (mph)SR 91 Eastbound: Green River Road to Ontario Avenue Time Savings Target Speed GP Express RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Micro-Simulation Model May 9, 2012 6.43 Table 6-18 EB HOT and GP Lane Speeds, 2035 by 2035 Network, Ultimate Eastbound Express Lanes Speed Legend, Red, <25 mph, Yellow, 25-50 mph, Green, 50+ mph HOx Lanes 55 55 to Lakevi ew Lakevi ew Lakevi ew- Imperia l Imperia l Imperia l-Weir Weir Weir- 241off 241 Gypsu m Gypsu m- 241on 241 HOT on to End 241on- HOT End HOT mixing HOT End- Green HOT end to HOT Narrow Green Green- SR71 SR 71 SR71 SR71- HOVmi x HOVmi x HOVmi x- Serfas Serfas Serfas- Maple Maple Maple- HOVmix HOVmix- Lincoln Lincoln Lincoln- 2nd 2nd Main Main- I15off I15off- I15SBon through 15, w/o SB ON through 15, e/ o SB ON HOVmix HOVmix, e/o 15 McKinley McKinley to HOVmix HOVmix HOVmix- Pierce Pierce Exit 0 771 279 106 108 110 112 114 116 139 118 118 146 121 62 32 804 151 125 126 126 165 165 175 127 181 128 129 129 447 196 201 130 131 101 223 222 219 225 239 569 247 571 254 258 2:05 PM 64 65 63 63 63 63 62 64 63 63 63 61 61 62 61 62 64 63 63 63 63 63 62 62 63 62 62 62 63 63 62 63 53 60 61 61 54 51 31 58 54 49 54 47 2:10 PM 63 65 63 64 62 64 64 63 63 63 63 57 60 62 60 62 63 62 62 62 63 63 62 62 63 62 62 62 62 63 63 63 58 61 60 59 55 57 56 58 52 54 47 49 2:15 PM 65 66 64 64 64 63 62 63 63 64 64 60 61 61 60 64 64 63 63 63 62 62 62 62 62 62 62 62 63 63 62 62 59 61 58 61 53 52 47 58 54 50 50 47 2:20 PM 64 64 64 63 64 64 64 63 64 63 63 59 61 62 61 62 62 62 63 63 63 63 63 64 63 63 62 62 62 63 63 62 60 62 58 60 56 56 44 57 54 55 51 47 2:25 PM 64 64 64 64 63 64 63 61 62 63 63 59 61 61 61 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 62 62 61 63 62 62 62 63 61 62 56 61 60 58 52 49 43 58 56 56 51 49 2:30 PM 65 65 64 64 62 62 62 63 63 64 64 60 61 62 61 61 61 61 63 63 63 63 63 63 62 63 62 62 62 63 62 62 61 61 61 59 54 53 37 58 53 48 51 49 2:35 PM 65 65 64 64 63 63 63 63 64 62 62 60 61 61 60 63 63 62 61 61 62 62 62 61 61 62 62 62 60 60 61 60 61 60 60 59 52 52 44 58 53 55 52 46 2:40 PM 63 65 64 63 62 63 63 63 63 63 63 59 62 62 61 63 63 61 62 62 62 62 61 61 61 61 63 63 63 61 61 62 57 60 59 56 54 52 49 57 53 55 53 47 2:45 PM 63 65 64 63 64 64 61 63 65 63 63 61 61 62 61 62 63 62 62 62 63 63 62 62 62 62 63 63 63 62 63 62 60 62 58 59 53 51 41 59 55 50 47 48 2:50 PM 64 64 64 63 63 63 63 62 63 64 64 61 60 61 61 62 63 61 62 62 62 62 61 62 62 60 62 62 62 63 62 61 58 58 58 59 55 54 49 54 53 45 44 48 2:55 PM 63 65 64 63 63 62 63 63 62 63 63 60 61 62 61 61 61 60 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 60 61 61 62 62 62 61 59 61 61 59 52 51 39 58 54 57 54 49 3:00 PM 63 64 63 62 63 63 64 64 63 63 63 59 59 61 61 62 62 62 62 62 61 61 61 60 61 60 61 61 60 60 60 60 60 59 58 58 54 51 38 57 52 57 57 48 3:05 PM 63 64 64 63 63 61 63 63 64 63 63 59 60 62 62 63 63 62 60 60 60 60 61 57 62 60 61 61 62 62 61 61 60 61 60 57 54 52 43 58 49 46 53 45 3:10 PM 63 65 65 64 63 63 60 62 62 62 62 60 61 61 61 64 64 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 61 59 62 62 59 60 55 60 57 54 43 57 52 50 41 49 3:15 PM 63 64 64 63 63 64 63 64 64 63 63 60 60 61 60 59 62 59 60 60 59 59 58 62 61 61 62 62 63 63 63 63 61 61 61 60 52 52 44 58 53 56 58 48 3:20 PM 64 65 64 63 64 63 63 63 62 63 63 59 60 61 61 61 63 61 61 61 61 61 61 62 63 61 62 62 60 62 61 61 61 60 56 58 52 52 35 56 53 55 57 50 3:25 PM 63 64 64 64 63 62 63 63 63 63 63 59 61 61 60 63 62 61 61 61 59 59 61 59 62 60 60 60 60 60 61 62 59 58 57 60 54 48 36 58 53 44 41 45 3:30 PM 63 65 64 63 64 63 61 63 62 63 63 60 61 60 61 62 63 61 62 62 62 62 59 60 59 61 61 61 61 62 62 61 58 60 59 57 49 47 38 54 52 44 37 45 3:35 PM 64 64 63 64 63 64 63 64 63 63 63 61 62 60 60 62 62 60 59 59 59 59 61 60 60 61 61 61 61 61 59 61 56 58 60 59 52 47 35 55 50 48 41 45 3:40 PM 64 64 64 63 63 63 62 62 63 63 63 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 62 62 60 60 62 60 60 61 61 61 58 61 61 61 55 53 60 58 50 50 36 57 51 46 42 42 3:45 PM 63 65 64 63 64 62 62 59 62 61 61 59 60 60 61 62 63 62 59 59 61 61 60 62 62 60 62 62 62 62 63 63 54 58 61 60 51 49 34 52 50 42 44 46 3:50 PM 64 64 64 63 63 63 63 62 64 62 62 55 59 61 60 60 61 61 61 61 60 60 59 59 60 60 60 60 60 61 61 62 58 59 59 57 51 49 42 58 46 44 51 46 3:55 PM 64 64 64 64 63 63 64 64 62 63 63 59 61 59 60 61 62 60 60 60 60 60 59 60 61 61 59 59 58 61 60 61 57 57 54 60 49 48 33 58 53 49 48 46 4:00 PM 65 65 64 64 64 63 63 62 63 62 62 57 60 60 60 63 63 62 61 61 60 60 62 61 61 61 61 61 60 57 58 60 50 58 58 59 51 48 40 56 47 42 41 44 4:05 PM 64 64 64 63 64 64 64 65 64 64 64 61 62 59 60 62 62 62 61 61 61 61 61 62 60 61 61 61 62 62 61 60 57 59 59 58 52 50 37 56 49 55 50 46 4:10 PM 64 65 64 63 63 63 64 64 64 64 64 60 61 60 61 63 63 61 62 62 62 62 61 60 61 61 60 60 60 61 60 60 59 60 60 60 52 50 41 56 30 52 40 40 4:15 PM 66 65 64 64 64 63 64 63 62 63 63 59 61 59 60 62 62 62 61 61 62 62 61 61 60 62 60 60 60 59 61 60 54 55 60 61 54 48 34 57 32 58 54 47 4:20 PM 64 64 63 64 64 63 62 63 62 61 61 53 59 59 60 62 63 61 62 62 62 62 62 61 61 62 61 61 61 62 61 60 59 60 59 58 52 50 31 56 24 60 59 48 4:25 PM 63 65 64 63 63 64 64 64 63 63 63 58 61 60 61 61 63 62 61 61 61 61 62 59 62 62 61 61 61 61 61 61 57 60 59 57 53 54 36 56 26 58 49 46 4:30 PM 64 65 64 63 64 63 62 62 62 62 62 59 60 59 61 61 61 61 60 60 60 60 61 60 61 61 60 60 62 62 62 60 59 60 60 60 51 52 36 54 21 60 59 52 4:35 PM 62 65 64 64 62 62 64 63 64 63 63 60 62 57 61 60 62 61 61 61 61 61 61 60 61 61 61 61 60 61 61 61 60 61 59 61 55 53 39 55 27 59 58 48 4:40 PM 65 64 63 63 61 63 64 61 63 62 62 59 59 60 61 62 62 61 61 61 60 60 60 62 61 62 61 61 62 61 61 60 60 54 60 56 54 52 34 56 27 59 55 45 4:45 PM 65 65 64 63 63 63 61 63 63 63 63 59 60 56 60 60 62 61 62 62 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 62 61 62 61 60 61 59 59 53 54 44 55 25 59 57 44 4:50 PM 64 64 63 62 62 63 63 62 63 63 63 59 61 58 61 62 63 61 61 61 60 60 60 60 61 61 61 61 61 60 61 58 57 58 59 58 53 50 46 57 23 60 59 46 4:55 PM 63 64 64 63 64 64 62 63 63 62 62 59 61 60 61 62 63 61 62 62 61 61 62 61 61 60 61 61 61 62 61 62 52 56 61 60 55 52 38 57 24 59 57 49 5:00 PM 63 64 63 62 61 62 64 64 63 62 62 58 61 59 61 61 62 61 60 60 62 62 62 62 61 61 62 62 61 61 60 61 55 55 59 58 55 53 36 57 24 58 58 49 5:05 PM 64 65 63 63 63 62 63 62 62 60 60 59 61 59 61 61 61 61 61 61 60 60 60 60 59 60 61 61 58 60 59 60 59 59 58 58 56 55 36 56 25 58 57 44 5:10 PM 64 65 64 64 64 65 63 62 63 63 63 57 57 58 60 63 64 63 62 62 62 62 60 61 60 60 59 59 58 58 59 60 59 57 58 60 52 54 39 56 23 55 58 50 5:15 PM 64 64 61 62 61 62 63 62 62 64 64 60 30 58 60 63 63 63 62 62 61 61 63 61 62 62 62 62 62 62 59 61 62 61 60 59 54 53 43 57 23 52 37 44 5:20 PM 65 65 64 64 64 63 63 63 63 62 62 59 41 58 60 62 62 61 61 61 60 60 60 60 61 61 61 61 62 61 61 62 60 60 61 61 51 51 38 57 24 60 56 46 5:25 PM 64 65 64 64 64 64 64 61 62 62 62 58 24 59 61 62 63 63 62 62 61 61 62 61 62 62 62 62 61 62 60 60 60 60 60 59 52 52 34 57 21 54 53 51 5:30 PM 61 63 63 63 63 61 63 63 63 62 62 58 40 59 61 62 63 61 60 60 61 61 60 60 60 60 59 59 57 59 61 61 59 61 60 60 52 52 39 56 22 54 51 48 5:35 PM 63 64 62 62 63 61 60 63 61 62 62 60 35 59 61 63 63 63 63 63 60 60 61 60 59 59 62 62 62 61 61 61 59 59 59 60 58 57 34 57 20 60 58 53 5:40 PM 64 64 63 63 63 62 62 55 62 60 60 57 18 59 61 61 63 62 61 61 62 62 62 62 63 62 61 61 61 61 61 60 60 62 60 58 55 54 39 55 21 60 59 47 5:45 PM 63 64 63 62 62 63 62 62 62 62 62 53 18 58 60 62 62 62 61 61 60 60 61 60 62 62 62 62 62 61 61 61 60 59 61 61 53 52 40 57 22 58 58 47 5:50 PM 64 64 64 63 63 63 60 62 61 61 61 51 20 58 60 63 62 61 61 61 61 61 62 60 61 61 62 62 62 61 62 62 61 59 62 62 46 46 35 58 21 60 54 52 5:55 PM 63 64 63 62 64 64 62 64 63 63 63 29 18 58 61 61 61 61 60 60 62 62 62 60 60 60 60 60 61 60 61 59 59 61 58 60 48 50 38 56 23 57 56 51 6:00 PM 64 64 64 63 63 63 62 62 61 63 63 32 18 59 61 63 63 61 61 61 61 61 59 62 60 61 61 61 60 60 59 60 60 59 62 61 54 51 36 49 19 60 57 54 6:05 PM 64 65 63 64 63 62 64 63 63 60 60 27 19 60 61 62 63 62 62 62 61 61 62 62 61 62 61 61 62 61 62 62 60 61 57 56 53 49 36 58 25 59 58 46 6:10 PM 63 65 64 63 64 64 64 64 62 62 62 40 18 59 61 62 64 61 61 61 62 62 62 62 61 62 60 60 61 60 62 61 61 60 60 60 54 55 38 57 24 56 52 48 6:15 PM 64 65 65 65 64 64 63 62 63 63 63 52 18 58 60 62 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 63 62 62 61 61 63 62 61 61 60 60 58 59 54 53 38 55 21 53 47 48 6:20 PM 64 65 63 64 64 65 64 64 65 64 64 61 19 59 61 62 61 61 60 60 59 59 61 61 60 61 61 61 61 61 60 60 59 59 61 61 50 51 31 57 25 43 45 50 6:25 PM 64 64 63 62 63 62 65 63 62 65 65 59 36 60 61 62 62 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 60 59 61 61 58 60 60 61 58 58 60 61 55 52 38 56 20 49 35 50 6:30 PM 64 64 64 63 63 62 62 62 62 61 61 56 60 59 62 62 62 62 62 62 62 62 60 60 60 62 60 60 61 61 59 61 60 61 60 61 60 58 36 56 21 60 60 46 6:35 PM 65 66 65 63 64 64 62 63 62 61 61 58 62 59 61 61 62 61 60 60 61 61 61 62 60 60 62 62 62 61 59 61 60 59 61 60 59 60 36 56 22 57 58 55 6:40 PM 63 65 64 65 64 63 64 64 63 63 63 60 62 59 61 60 62 61 59 59 60 60 61 60 60 60 61 61 61 59 60 60 57 61 62 61 56 51 38 55 20 60 57 57 6:45 PM 64 66 65 64 65 63 63 65 65 64 64 61 62 59 61 61 62 60 61 61 61 61 61 60 61 60 61 61 60 59 61 61 58 58 57 60 51 50 37 57 18 59 56 60 6:50 PM 64 65 65 64 64 63 63 65 64 64 64 61 61 59 60 62 63 61 62 62 61 61 62 61 62 62 62 62 62 60 61 59 59 60 60 58 49 50 36 51 19 56 52 56 6:55 PM 65 65 65 64 63 63 64 62 62 63 63 61 61 60 61 61 61 62 60 60 61 61 62 62 62 62 63 63 61 60 61 60 61 61 60 59 42 44 33 54 18 60 59 52 7:00 PM 63 65 65 65 64 64 63 63 63 62 62 58 60 61 61 63 62 63 62 62 62 62 60 62 60 60 60 60 60 61 61 62 56 59 61 59 51 49 33 53 23 49 39 52 RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Micro-Simulation Model May 9, 2012 6.44 Table 6-19 (cont.) EB HOT and GP Lane Speeds, 2035 by 2035 Network, Ultimate Eastbound General Purpose Lanes Speed Legend, Red, <25 mph, Yellow, 25-50 mph, Green, 50+ mph GP Lanes WEST OF Tustin Tustin to 55 55 55 - Lakevi ew Lakevi ew Lakevi ew- Imperia l Imperia l Imperia l-Weir Weir Weir- 241off 241 Gypsu m Gypsu m- 241on 241on- HOT End HOT End HOT End- Green HOT End- Green Green Green Green- SR71 SR71 CD off to On SR71 SR71- HOVmi x HOVmi x HOVmi x- Serfas Serfas Serfas- Maple Maple Maple- Lincoln Maple- Lincoln Lincoln Lincoln- 2nd 2nd Main Main- ExI15off MainCD On to 15on I15SBon- I15NBon HOT Mixing Area e/o15 HOT Mix to McKinley HOT Mix to McKinley McKinley HOVmix HOVmix HOVmix- Pierce Pierce Exit 0 623 707 768 30 31 45 50 36 54 12 135 58 141 27 62 32 32 157 311 71 889 76 161 161 171 80 176 84 88 88 184 188 197 203 103 215 219 225 231 235 240 244 247 159 255 258 2:05 PM 57 54 57 58 58 59 58 59 59 57 57 58 58 60 62 61 61 60 59 60 60 59 60 60 61 60 60 60 42 42 47 60 54 51 54 56 54 51 48 50 52 48 54 52 46 47 2:10 PM 57 48 57 58 58 58 59 59 60 59 58 59 59 60 62 60 60 60 59 60 58 59 60 60 61 59 60 56 41 41 46 61 52 51 54 52 55 57 56 54 53 41 52 45 44 49 2:15 PM 57 54 58 58 58 58 58 59 59 59 59 59 58 60 61 60 60 59 58 59 60 59 60 60 60 58 60 46 35 35 45 60 55 54 55 55 53 52 54 53 52 48 54 53 41 47 2:20 PM 56 51 58 58 59 59 59 59 59 58 57 59 58 59 62 61 61 60 60 60 60 59 60 60 61 60 60 25 38 38 45 60 54 54 56 55 56 56 57 51 54 49 54 49 43 47 2:25 PM 57 44 57 58 58 58 59 58 60 58 58 58 59 60 61 61 61 60 59 59 59 60 60 60 61 60 60 53 37 37 45 61 52 52 53 52 52 49 56 55 57 51 56 54 46 49 2:30 PM 57 38 57 58 58 59 59 59 59 58 58 58 59 59 62 61 61 60 60 60 60 60 61 61 61 60 60 55 33 33 45 60 53 54 53 53 54 53 50 48 50 43 53 50 49 49 2:35 PM 58 49 55 58 59 58 59 59 60 59 58 59 59 60 61 60 60 60 58 59 58 58 59 59 60 59 59 54 42 42 46 61 53 52 54 52 52 52 56 53 52 44 53 51 40 46 2:40 PM 57 52 58 58 58 59 58 59 60 59 58 58 59 59 62 61 61 60 60 61 61 60 61 61 61 60 60 28 41 41 49 61 52 52 54 53 54 52 54 50 50 48 53 54 42 47 2:45 PM 56 52 57 58 58 58 58 59 59 59 58 59 58 58 62 61 61 60 58 59 59 59 60 60 61 60 60 32 43 43 56 62 54 53 54 51 53 51 55 55 55 53 55 52 44 48 2:50 PM 57 46 58 58 58 59 58 58 59 59 58 58 58 59 61 61 61 60 59 60 59 58 59 59 60 59 60 38 41 41 50 62 54 49 53 53 55 54 56 52 52 49 53 51 45 48 2:55 PM 57 51 56 58 58 59 59 59 60 57 57 58 57 59 62 61 61 60 59 60 60 59 60 60 61 59 60 24 44 44 50 62 53 50 51 49 52 51 55 53 51 49 54 54 43 49 3:00 PM 57 44 58 58 59 59 59 59 60 58 59 59 59 60 61 61 61 60 59 57 60 59 60 60 61 60 60 42 40 40 53 61 54 53 53 53 54 51 54 48 49 44 52 52 44 48 3:05 PM 58 48 58 58 59 59 58 59 59 59 58 58 58 59 62 62 62 60 58 57 60 59 61 61 61 58 61 59 41 41 48 61 54 53 54 53 54 52 57 54 54 47 49 50 41 45 3:10 PM 57 38 58 58 58 59 59 58 59 58 58 58 57 58 61 61 61 60 59 61 60 60 61 61 61 59 61 53 41 41 49 62 54 54 55 55 57 54 56 54 53 50 52 51 44 49 3:15 PM 57 42 58 58 58 58 58 58 59 59 59 59 57 59 61 60 60 60 59 60 59 59 60 60 61 58 59 47 42 42 48 61 52 52 52 53 52 52 59 56 58 50 53 52 42 48 3:20 PM 57 39 58 57 58 59 59 59 59 58 57 57 53 59 61 61 61 61 60 60 60 59 60 60 61 59 60 48 42 42 49 62 54 53 56 53 52 52 54 50 53 45 53 52 45 50 3:25 PM 58 39 58 58 58 58 59 58 59 60 58 58 55 57 61 60 60 60 58 58 60 59 60 60 61 56 60 26 43 43 51 61 52 53 52 50 54 48 55 50 50 44 53 52 40 45 3:30 PM 58 39 59 58 59 59 59 59 59 58 57 58 54 58 60 61 61 61 60 61 60 60 60 60 61 54 59 25 39 39 58 62 54 52 53 50 49 47 48 49 51 43 52 51 40 45 3:35 PM 57 38 58 58 58 59 59 59 60 58 58 57 55 59 60 60 60 60 58 60 59 60 60 60 61 59 60 25 44 44 60 62 55 55 56 54 52 47 51 46 48 42 50 51 43 45 3:40 PM 57 37 58 58 59 59 59 59 59 59 58 58 57 58 61 61 61 60 59 57 60 59 60 60 60 58 48 27 44 44 56 61 54 53 53 51 50 50 56 54 48 45 51 46 42 42 3:45 PM 57 40 57 58 58 59 59 59 60 58 58 58 56 59 60 61 61 60 60 60 60 59 60 60 61 57 37 27 44 44 59 61 54 54 54 50 51 49 45 46 49 45 50 50 40 46 3:50 PM 57 37 58 58 58 59 57 58 59 59 59 59 54 59 61 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 61 61 61 60 23 26 44 44 51 61 54 52 51 49 51 49 50 47 50 39 46 47 42 46 3:55 PM 57 40 58 58 59 59 59 59 59 58 57 58 56 59 59 60 60 60 59 59 59 59 60 60 60 58 22 26 37 37 53 61 54 52 53 49 49 48 50 47 49 44 53 48 37 46 4:00 PM 58 41 59 59 59 59 59 59 60 60 58 59 57 57 60 60 60 60 59 58 60 59 60 60 61 59 22 25 38 38 51 61 51 51 54 52 51 48 48 45 49 38 47 36 39 44 4:05 PM 56 38 58 58 58 59 58 59 59 59 58 59 56 56 59 60 60 61 60 54 60 60 60 60 61 60 23 25 38 38 48 61 55 52 55 53 52 50 52 48 51 44 49 18 40 46 4:10 PM 57 37 58 58 58 59 58 58 59 59 58 58 56 52 60 61 61 61 59 60 60 60 60 60 62 59 20 23 44 44 51 62 55 52 53 52 52 50 52 52 50 44 30 19 40 40 4:15 PM 54 42 57 58 58 59 59 59 60 59 58 57 56 29 59 60 60 60 60 60 61 60 60 60 62 59 22 25 45 45 53 61 54 52 54 53 54 48 50 50 51 47 32 17 45 47 4:20 PM 56 47 57 58 58 58 57 58 59 58 58 58 55 26 59 60 60 61 60 58 60 59 60 60 60 58 24 24 44 44 54 63 55 54 55 55 52 50 47 44 51 39 24 19 43 48 4:25 PM 52 43 57 58 58 58 58 58 59 59 57 51 30 26 60 61 61 60 60 61 60 60 60 60 61 59 22 26 48 48 50 62 55 52 52 50 53 54 53 54 54 27 26 18 42 46 4:30 PM 53 51 57 58 58 57 59 58 59 58 58 20 28 26 59 61 61 60 59 57 60 59 60 60 61 60 37 25 44 44 49 61 55 55 53 50 51 52 56 54 53 25 21 15 47 52 4:35 PM 57 38 58 58 58 59 58 59 59 58 57 20 26 27 57 61 61 61 60 60 60 59 60 60 60 60 60 25 42 42 55 62 55 51 53 53 55 53 57 55 47 20 27 20 42 48 4:40 PM 58 38 58 58 58 59 58 58 60 59 22 19 24 27 60 61 61 61 59 60 60 60 60 60 61 60 61 26 42 42 55 62 55 53 55 54 54 52 57 53 25 29 27 19 39 45 4:45 PM 57 34 58 58 59 59 58 58 59 59 16 19 30 27 56 60 60 60 59 59 60 60 61 61 61 60 60 42 45 45 56 62 56 54 54 53 53 54 58 55 47 24 25 18 37 44 4:50 PM 57 34 59 59 59 60 59 59 60 59 20 20 25 26 58 61 61 61 60 61 61 60 60 60 61 58 61 58 43 43 54 61 52 52 53 52 53 50 56 53 51 22 23 19 41 46 4:55 PM 50 31 56 58 58 59 58 59 60 59 19 20 27 26 60 61 61 61 59 60 60 60 61 61 62 60 61 61 43 43 51 62 56 55 56 54 55 52 48 47 52 26 24 17 44 49 5:00 PM 36 37 57 58 58 59 58 58 60 58 17 17 24 27 59 61 61 60 58 61 60 60 61 61 61 61 61 59 45 45 52 61 55 53 55 55 55 53 58 55 55 19 24 17 44 49 5:05 PM 57 44 57 58 58 59 58 58 59 56 17 19 23 27 59 61 61 61 60 61 61 61 61 61 62 61 61 60 42 42 53 62 55 53 55 56 56 55 57 53 56 21 25 18 45 44 5:10 PM 57 40 58 59 59 59 59 59 60 19 18 20 30 27 58 60 60 60 59 57 60 60 61 61 61 60 61 60 50 50 51 62 54 53 56 52 52 54 59 58 56 22 23 17 42 50 5:15 PM 57 40 58 59 59 59 59 59 60 21 20 22 26 26 58 60 60 60 59 61 60 60 60 60 61 60 61 59 43 43 55 62 55 53 53 55 54 53 58 55 55 21 23 18 38 44 5:20 PM 58 39 59 58 59 59 59 59 60 22 18 19 25 25 58 60 60 60 59 60 60 59 60 60 61 59 60 60 42 42 54 62 52 53 53 48 51 51 56 54 54 25 24 19 39 46 5:25 PM 56 46 58 59 59 59 59 59 60 20 18 18 24 27 59 61 61 60 60 59 61 61 60 60 61 60 61 60 41 41 49 61 54 47 51 52 52 52 49 49 51 24 21 15 46 51 5:30 PM 57 40 57 58 59 59 59 58 60 20 16 19 24 28 59 61 61 61 59 61 61 61 61 61 62 60 61 62 39 39 49 62 50 41 55 53 52 52 58 54 53 18 22 15 50 48 5:35 PM 58 36 58 59 59 59 59 59 60 18 17 17 25 26 59 61 61 61 60 61 62 61 61 61 62 61 61 61 46 46 50 56 38 36 58 57 58 57 60 56 57 18 20 13 51 53 5:40 PM 56 36 58 59 59 59 59 60 60 38 17 18 25 26 59 61 61 61 60 61 61 61 61 61 62 60 62 62 53 53 44 36 34 32 54 54 55 54 61 59 58 16 21 18 39 47 5:45 PM 58 38 59 58 59 59 59 59 60 58 18 20 27 25 58 60 60 60 60 58 61 61 61 61 62 61 61 60 46 46 47 62 37 31 51 52 53 52 53 49 51 21 22 15 44 47 5:50 PM 57 41 59 58 59 59 59 60 60 61 17 20 25 25 58 60 60 61 60 61 61 61 61 61 61 60 60 58 47 47 53 62 53 33 50 46 46 46 52 52 53 18 21 15 49 52 5:55 PM 58 37 58 58 59 60 59 59 60 60 18 20 28 27 58 61 61 61 60 61 61 61 61 61 62 60 61 61 48 48 54 62 55 32 52 50 48 50 56 53 54 19 23 16 47 51 6:00 PM 58 38 59 59 59 59 59 59 60 60 18 20 24 26 59 61 61 61 59 61 61 61 61 61 61 60 61 60 53 53 59 62 56 34 53 53 54 51 51 50 50 16 19 13 49 54 6:05 PM 58 42 59 59 59 60 60 60 60 60 18 19 26 26 60 61 61 61 60 61 60 60 60 60 62 60 61 61 48 48 59 63 54 51 54 53 53 49 56 52 40 22 25 17 45 46 6:10 PM 58 48 58 59 59 60 60 60 61 61 19 20 27 24 59 61 61 61 60 61 61 61 61 61 61 60 61 56 45 45 59 63 55 53 54 52 54 55 58 57 24 20 24 17 48 48 6:15 PM 58 48 58 59 59 60 60 60 61 61 60 21 27 27 58 60 60 61 60 61 61 61 61 61 62 61 61 56 43 43 56 62 55 47 53 51 54 53 59 54 45 16 21 16 44 48 6:20 PM 58 47 59 59 59 60 59 60 60 61 60 56 27 25 59 61 61 61 60 58 61 60 60 60 61 59 61 60 41 41 48 62 53 40 51 45 50 51 57 53 52 22 25 18 46 50 6:25 PM 58 43 59 59 60 60 60 60 60 60 59 60 39 26 60 61 61 62 61 61 61 61 61 61 62 60 61 60 47 47 56 58 42 44 56 54 55 52 53 48 51 22 20 10 52 50 6:30 PM 58 43 59 59 59 59 59 60 61 60 60 60 59 27 59 62 62 61 60 61 62 61 62 62 62 61 62 61 45 45 46 46 44 41 61 59 60 58 62 61 60 15 21 15 40 46 6:35 PM 58 44 59 59 59 60 60 60 60 60 59 60 61 31 59 61 61 61 60 61 61 61 62 62 62 60 62 61 25 25 30 35 34 33 57 58 59 60 61 62 62 20 22 12 56 55 6:40 PM 58 46 58 59 59 60 59 60 60 60 60 60 59 61 59 61 61 61 60 62 61 62 62 62 62 61 62 56 21 21 32 26 31 30 51 52 56 51 57 54 57 16 20 12 52 57 6:45 PM 58 42 58 59 59 59 59 60 61 60 60 60 60 61 59 61 61 61 59 59 61 60 60 60 61 60 57 22 28 28 47 50 34 33 56 53 51 50 44 51 50 16 18 11 57 60 6:50 PM 58 47 56 58 59 60 59 59 60 60 60 60 59 61 59 60 60 61 60 61 62 61 62 62 62 60 46 23 30 30 46 62 48 32 47 45 49 50 60 57 32 14 19 11 54 56 6:55 PM 58 51 58 59 59 59 58 59 60 61 60 59 58 60 60 61 61 61 61 61 62 61 62 62 62 60 55 25 32 32 44 62 54 48 49 45 42 44 47 42 21 13 18 13 49 52 7:00 PM 58 56 59 59 59 59 60 60 60 60 59 60 59 60 61 61 61 61 59 60 60 60 61 61 62 61 61 23 38 38 51 62 56 52 52 49 51 49 53 27 13 17 23 14 51 52 RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Micro-Simulation Model May 9, 2012 6.45 Eastbound express traffic flow is presented in Figure 6-42 and remains at approximately a 2,500 vehicle per hour rate throughout the PM simulation period. Demand for the eastbound to southbound movement grows as congestion on I-15 southbound increases. By 5 PM, demand for the south connector exceeds demand for the eastbound through movement. Figure 6-42 Eastbound Express Lanes Distribution, 2035 by 2035 Network The westbound Express Lanes offer litt le time savings for users traveling from east to west although speeds are 10 miles per hour higher than experienced on the general purpose lanes. For motorists traveling via I-15 northbound, northbound to westbound connector would save more than 9 minutes at the peak due to increased congestion on I-15 northbound. 2,279 2,479 2,553 2,466 2,520 1,363 1,624 1,628 1,223 1,225 890 849 940 1,235 1,302 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 2-3 PM 3-4 PM 4-5 PM 5-6 PM 6-7 PM SR 91 Eastbound Riverside County Express Lanes Traffic RCTC 91 XL RCTC 91 XL, through RCTC 91 XL, to 15 SB RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Micro-Simulation Model May 9, 2012 6.46 Figure 6-43 Westbound Speeds, 2035 by 2035 Network, I-15 to Green River Road Figure 6-44 Westbound Speeds, 2035 by 2035 Network, Ontario Avenue to Green River Road Traffic on the westbound express lanes ranges from just under 900 vehicles per hour to nearly 1,200 vehicles per hour. Movements from the east to the west remain a larger contributor th an the south connector. 0.1 1.1 2.0 1.9 0.1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 2-3 PM3-4 PM4-5 PM5-6 PM6-7 PMTime Savings (mins)Speed (mph)SR 91 Westbound: I-15 to Green River Road Time Savings Target Speed GP Express 2.9 5.8 8.5 9.3 6.2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 2-3 PM3-4 PM4-5 PM5-6 PM6-7 PMTime Savings (mins)Speed (mph)SR 91 Westbound: Ontario Avenue to Green River Road Time Savings Target Speed GP Express RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Micro-Simulation Model May 9, 2012 6.47 Figure 6-45 Westbound Express Lanes Distribution, 2035 by 2035 Network Revenue Forecast The VISSIM micro simulation model predicts total 2-7 PM toll traffic and revenue that are similar to market share model forecasts. Micro simulation model toll traffic is 10 percent lower than predicted by the market share model, while revenue is approximately 3 percent higher, again buoyed by higher toll rates. 1,009 1,189 892 1,115 943 664 745 581 582 563 327 453 311 527 378 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 2-3 PM 3-4 PM 4-5 PM 5-6 PM 6-7 PM SR 91 Westbound Riverside County Express Lanes Traffic RCTC 91 XL RCTC 91 XL, through RCTC 91 XL, via 15NB RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Micro-Simulation Model May 9, 2012 6.48 Figure 6-46 Express Lanes Toll Traffic, 2035 by 2035 Network Figure 6-47 Express Lanes Revenue, 2035 by 2035 Network RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Micro-Simulation Model May 9, 2012 6.49 Table 6-20 Express Lane Traffic and Revenue, 2035 by 2035 Network 2-7 PM * Average Toll charged excluding HOV3+ vehicles which are assumed toll free. Figure 6-48 through Figure 6-52 illustrate traffic conditions predicted by the micro simulation model at various segments of the corridor at 4:40 PM. Traffic is lighter than shown in the 2035 by 2020 Network scenario. SR 91 Eastbound Revenue, 2010$'s Average Toll Charged*Total Express Traffic From To Vissim T&R model Vissim T&R model Vissim T&R model 2:00 PM 3:00 PM $5,043 $8,257 $2.27 $3.86 2,349 2,404 3:00 PM 4:00 PM $11,498 $11,842 $5.09 $5.05 2,470 2,849 4:00 PM 5:00 PM $15,192 $15,489 $7.49 $6.51 2,299 3,037 5:00 PM 6:00 PM $16,705 $15,689 $8.81 $6.52 2,168 3,083 6:00 PM 7:00 PM $15,951 $15,735 $8.84 $6.52 2,117 3,020 Total 2-7 PM $64,389 $67,012 $6.50 $5.69 11,403 14,393 SR 91 Westbound Revenue, 2010$'s Average Toll Charged*Total Express Traffic From To Vissim T&R model Vissim T&R model Vissim T&R model 2:00 PM 3:00 PM $1,427 $1,101 $1.46 $1.50 1,018 861 3:00 PM 4:00 PM $1,559 $1,353 $1.47 $1.51 1,102 1,044 4:00 PM 5:00 PM $2,025 $2,242 $1.54 $2.21 1,385 1,197 5:00 PM 6:00 PM $1,949 $2,431 $1.53 $2.20 1,341 1,292 6:00 PM 7:00 PM $1,258 $857 $0.98 $1.50 1,347 723 Total 2-7 PM $8,217 $7,983 $1.40 $1.78 6,193 5,117 SR 91 EB &WB Revenu,2010$'s Average Toll Charged*Total Express Traffic From To Vissim T&R model Vissim T&R model Vissim T&R model 2:00 PM 3:00 PM $6,470 $9,358 $2.02 $3.25 3,367 3,265 3:00 PM 4:00 PM $13,057 $13,194 $3.94 $4.07 3,572 3,893 4:00 PM 5:00 PM $17,217 $17,731 $5.15 $5.12 3,684 4,234 5:00 PM 6:00 PM $18,654 $18,119 $5.88 $5.02 3,509 4,375 6:00 PM 7:00 PM $17,209 $16,592 $5.58 $5.47 3,464 3,743 Total 2-7 PM $72,606 $74,994 $4.50 $4.62 17,596 19,510 RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Micro-Simulation Model May 9, 2012 6.50 Figure 6-48 Orange County SR 91 Mixing Area, 4:40 PM Figure 6-49 Serfas Club Drive, 4:40 PM RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Micro-Simulation Model May 9, 2012 6.51 Figure 6-50 Lincoln Avenue, 4:40 PM Figure 6-51 I-15/SR 91 Interchange, 4:40 PM RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Micro-Simulation Model May 9, 2012 6.52 Figure 6-52 McKinley Street, 4:40 PM RIVERSIDE COUNTY 91 7.1 7.0 Marketshare Analysis 7.1 OVERVIEW This chapter discusses the development of a set of “market share curves” which model the revealed preference of Orange County SR 91 Express Lanes full toll paying users. The existing Orange County SR 91 Express Lanes are located immediately west of the western terminus of the proposed Riverside County SR 91 Express Lanes. They would be separated only by a n approximately 1.5 mile mixing zone, between SR 241 and Green River Road, and would operate with similar operational policies. Both roads would charge most users variable toll s, tied to congestion, and both roads would serve travelers commuting between Orange and Riverside Counties. Because of their similarities, behaviors exhibited by users of the existing SR 91 Express Lanes are expected to be similar to behaviors of future potential users of the proposed Riverside County SR 91 Express Lanes. 7.2 METHODOLOGY The market share curves are built from a compilation of traffic, speed, and income data collected in 2008 and 2009. General purpose lane hourly traffic and speed data from the PEMS database, and SR 91 Express lanes hourly traffic and toll data obtained from the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) were compared against each other to develop relationships between global traffic demand (the combination of general purpose and Express Lane traffic), and demand to use the existing SR 91 Express Lanes. Income stratification as r eported in the 2009 SR 91 Express Lanes customer satisfaction survey were used to support estimation of the toll elasticity of demand. The result is a set of curves that predict express lane toll vehicle usage given a global volume to capacity (V/C) ratio, and a toll expressed as a cost per mile of travel. 7.3 EXISTING EXPRESS TRAFFIC VS GLOBAL V/C Selection of an Analysis Direction Market share relationships observed on the eastbound SR 91 Express Lanes were chosen to be the basis for future market share of both directions of the Riverside County Express Lanes. Westbound SR 91 Express Lanes market share data were not used. Figure 7-1 demonstrates the difference between SR 91 eastbound and westbound express traffic. On average from July 2007 to June 2008, eastbound weekday traffic peaked at approximately 3,000 vehicles per hour while westbound traffic peaked at approximately 2,200 RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Marketshare Analysis May 9, 2012 7.2 vehicles per hour. Full toll paying traffic eastbound was 2,500 vehicles per hour at the intraday peak, and westbound toll traffic reached a high of 1,600 vehicles per hour. The difference in demand is also expressed by the difference in tolls charged. During July 2008, the full toll from Monday to Thursday averaged more than $8.00, while westbound tolls were less than $4.50. Figure 7-1 SR 91 Express Lanes Weekday Traffic, Fiscal Year 2008 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 12:00 AM1:00 AM2:00 AM3:00 AM4:00 AM5:00 AM6:00 AM7:00 AM8:00 AM9:00 AM10:00 AM11:00 AM12:00 PM1:00 PM2:00 PM3:00 PM4:00 PM5:00 PM6:00 PM7:00 PM8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PMExpress Traffic, vehiclesHour Beginning EB All Express EB Full Toll WB All Express WB Full Toll RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Marketshare Analysis May 9, 2012 7.3 Figure 7-2 SR 91 Express Lanes Tolls, Average Monday to Thursday, July 2008 The difference in traffic and tolls is in part attributable to differences in general purpose lane travel times. Peak period travel times on the eastbound and westbound general purpose lanes in Orange County differ substantially. While westbound is the peak travel direction during the AM peak period, and the eastbound is the peak travel direction during the PM peak, travel times can be over twice as high in the eastbound direction. In a recent survey of travel times, which already include the additional eastbound general purpose auxiliary lane between SR 241 and SR 71, eastbound motorists required more than 35 minutes to travel eastbound from SR 55 to the County Line, but the reverse trip during the morning rush hour required less than 15 minutes. During free -flow periods, travel time was just under 9 minutes. In addition to differences in the intensity of congestion, the eastbound lanes experienced congestion throughout the 3.5 hour PM survey period while the westbound lanes were congested for 2 hours. Additional data as shown in Chapter 3 show that the eastbound lanes are congested for 4 to 5 hours, and the westbound lanes experience about 3 hours of congestion. Figure 7-3 illustrates the weekday peak period travel times observed in July 2011. $0.00 $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 $6.00 $7.00 $8.00 $9.00 12:00 AM1:00 AM2:00 AM3:00 AM4:00 AM5:00 AM6:00 AM7:00 AM8:00 AM9:00 AM10:00 AM11:00 AM12:00 PM1:00 PM2:00 PM3:00 PM4:00 PM5:00 PM6:00 PM7:00 PM8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PMFull TollHour Beginning Eastbound Westbound RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Marketshare Analysis May 9, 2012 7.4 Figure 7-3 SR 91 GP Lane Travel Time, SR 55 to County Line, July 2011 Riverside County SR 91 travel time data recorded in November 2010, which aggregate travel time on the general purpose and HOV lanes, show that both directions experience intense congestion, and duration of congestion comparable to that on the eastbound Orange County SR 91 GP lanes. The westbound lanes are congested for well over 4 hours, and motorists experience travel times of over 35 minutes. Eastbound, congestion lasts for more than 5 hou rs, although travel times are lower, reaching a maximum of 20 minutes. The data presented in Figure 7-4 aggregate both GP and HOV lane travel times. GP lane only travel times are likely higher than presented. Orange County SR 91 eastbound Express Lane market share relationships are expected to better reflect decisions to use the Riverside County SR 91 Express Lanes better than westbound market share relationships. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 6-7 AM7-8 AM8-9 AM330-4 PM4-5 PM5-6 PM6-7 PMTravel Time (minutes)Time EB GP WB GP Free Flow Travel Time RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Marketshare Analysis May 9, 2012 7.5 Figure 7-4 SR 91 GP & HOV Travel Time, County Line to McKinley Street, November 2010 Selection of Analysis Point Market share analysis was conducted for the single most congested segment of the roadway. Where the road is most congested, bottlenecks form and users experience substantial delay. It is expected that travelers’ decision to pay a toll to use the Express Lanes would be largely due to the congestion experienced at the road’s bottleneck location. An analysis of average weekday traffic data on SR 91 show that on a per lane basis, the eastbound lanes between SR 241 and the Orange and Riverside County Line show the greatest congestion, and in the westbound direction, the segment between Imperial Highway and Weir Canyon Road has the greatest per lane volume. Daily traffic levels per lane are illustrated in Figure 7-5. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 6-7 AM 7-8 AM 8-9 AM 9-10 AM 2-3 PM 3-4 PM 4-5 PM 5-6 PM 6-7 PM 7-8 PMTravel Time (minutes)Time EB GP WB GP Free Flow Travel Time RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Marketshare Analysis May 9, 2012 7.6 Figure 7-5 Average Weekday General Purpose Volume per Lane 7.3.1 Eastbound Express Traffic vs. Global Traffic Eastbound curves were developed from year 2008 and 2009 traffic and speed data collected from PEMS (GP lane traffic and speed) and from the Orange County Transportation Authority (SR 91 Express traffic). During the period from mid-2009 to mid-2010, construction of the eastbound auxiliary lane from SR 241 to SR 71 caused higher than normal congestion on SR 91 EB and boosted express lane traffic. Data from this period were not used because they are not believed to be indicative of typical conditions. Both GP and Express Lanes data were analyzed on an hourly basis, removing the impacts of holidays and days with atypical travel conditions. Express lanes traffic demonstrates a strong direct correlation with GP lane traffic, and was used to build the market share curves. Figure 7-6 shows that as GP lane traffic rises, express lane traffic also rises. However, as the GP lanes approach and exceed capacity, GP l ane traffic flow declines while express lane traffic continues to increase. A comparison of express lanes traffic and GP lane speed, presented in Figure 7-7 also demonstrate correlation, but by inspection, it can be seen that there is greater correlation between GP lane traffic and Express traffic. 32,200 24,200 24,100 19,600 27,000 27,200 RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Marketshare Analysis May 9, 2012 7.7 Figure 7-6 Eastbound Express Traffic (Full Toll and HOV3+) vs. GP Lane Traffic Figure 7-7 Eastbound Express Traffic (Full Toll and HOV3+) vs. GP Lane Speed 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000SR 91 Eastbound Express Express (Full Toll & HOV3+) VolumeGP Lane Count GP Lanes over capacity 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 01020304050607080 SR 91 Eastbound Express HOT VolumeGP Lane Speed (mph) RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Marketshare Analysis May 9, 2012 7.8 Express lane traffic data were further disaggregated into full toll paying and vehicles that travel for free or pay a 50% discounted rate from 4-6 PM (generally registered HOV-3+ carpools, and will be referred to as “HOV-3+”). HOV-3+ express lane users travel toll free during all hours except from 4-6 PM when they pay a 50 percent discounted toll. By the time the Riverside County Express Lanes are scheduled to be open for operations in 2017, it is expected that the toll for HOV-3+ vehicles will be eliminated entirely. The significant difference in tolls charged HOV-3+ and full toll vehicles today, and expected to be charged in the future suggests that the decision and revealed behavior of full toll traffic and HOV -3+ traffic should be considered separately. Figure 7-8 shows the relationship between full toll and GP lane traffic, while Figure 7-9 compares HOV-3+ traffic on the SR 91 Express lanes and GP lane traffic. Full toll traffic maintains a strong correlation with GP lane traffic. While HOV -3+ traffic also demonstrate some correlation, the data show distinct levels of HOV-3+ utilization at common GP lane traffic levels, and suggest factors other than tolls or congestion are responsible for HOV-3+ demand levels. Figure 7-8 Eastbound Full Toll Traffic vs. GP Lane Traffic 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000SR 91 Eastbound Express Toll VolumeGP Lane Count GP Lanes over capacity RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Marketshare Analysis May 9, 2012 7.9 Figure 7-9 Eastbound HOV3+ Traffic vs. GP Lane Traffic 7.3.2 Congested Period Demand Estimation and Global V/C Available count and speed data were converted into market share and a demand based global V/C ratio. GP and Express Lane data demonstrate that at the highest levels of Express Lane usage, GP lane traffic counts show flow that is lower than exists during sh oulder hours. During these hours, demand is overcapacity, and the GP lanes are constrained by high volumes, high weaving, and potentially downstream bottlenecks. The low traffic counts do not show the high demand that exists during these times of day. GP l ane traffic counts were converted to an equivalent demand based on capacity and speed data. If data points that show traffic lower than counted in shoulder hours and congested speeds, they are increased above capacity, effectively creating an equivalent GP lane demand level. Increases were based on the Akcelik speed flow curve, speeds reported by the PEMS database, and capacities observed from count data. 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000SR 91 Eastbound Express HOV3+ VolumeGP Lane Count RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Marketshare Analysis May 9, 2012 7.10 Figure 7-10 General Purpose Lane Demand Adjustment Figure 7-11 Akcelik Speed and V/C Curve Global V/C was calculated using a general purpose lane capacity of 7,800 vehicles per hour, or 1,950 per lane. Count data were analyzed over the two year period from 2008 and 2009, prior to the start of construction of the SR 91 eastbound auxiliary lane pr oject, which is known to have degraded corridor capacity and boosted SR 91 Express Lane volume. Capacity for purposes of the market share curve analysis was identified as the point where flow reached a maximum and speeds degraded well below free-flow levels. The data shown in Figure 7-12 illustrates GP 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 12:00 AM1:00 AM2:00 AM3:00 AM4:00 AM5:00 AM6:00 AM7:00 AM8:00 AM9:00 AM10:00 AM11:00 AM12:00 PM1:00 PM2:00 PM3:00 PM4:00 PM5:00 PM6:00 PM7:00 PM8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PMGeneral Purpose Lane Speed (mph)General Purpose Lane Count (vehicles / hour)GP Count Demand Adjusted GP Volume SPEED 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0.000.100.200.300.400.500.600.700.800.901.001.101.201.30Speed (mph)GP Lane V/C RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Marketshare Analysis May 9, 2012 7.11 lane count and speed data for weekdays, Fridays, and weekends, and shows that the general purpose lanes were not able to consistently process more than approximately 7,800 vehicles per hour. Figure 7-12 SR 91 Eastbound General Purpose Lane Capacity, Weekday, Friday, & Weekend Capacity of the SR 91 Express Lanes was assumed at 4,200 vehicles per hour, or 2,100 vehicles per lane. Tolls on the 91 Express Lanes have historically limited demand to levels that maintain free flow, and therefore lower than capacity. Capacity is assumed higher than on the ge neral purpose lanes because of the lack of entry or exit ramps and lack of trucks, both elements that reduce freeway capacity. On a global (general purpose and express lanes combined) basis, capacity of the SR 91 at the SR 241 to County Line bottleneck was assumed to be 12,000 vehicles per hour. Global V/C’s were calculated by dividing the global demand (Akcelik curve adjusted GP lane count plus express lane count) per hour by the global capacity. Figure 7-13 illustrates GP, Express, and Global V/C for each hour of a typical weekday in 2009. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000GP Speeds (mph)General Purpose Lane Volume (vehicles /hour) Weekday, Friday, Weekend Capacity = 7,800 vehs/hr RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Marketshare Analysis May 9, 2012 7.12 Figure 7-13 SR 91 Eastbound GP, Express, and Global V/C 7.3.3 Toll Curve Fitting Toll curves representing historical prices charged were fitted through the resulting global demand and toll market share data points. The data were segmented into eastbound weekday (Monday to Thursday), eastbound Friday, and eastbound weekend (Saturday and Sunday), and further segmented by price. Figure 7-14 shows some sample data points for weekdays through which are the basis for the construction of weekday toll curves. 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 12:00 AM1:00 AM2:00 AM3:00 AM4:00 AM5:00 AM6:00 AM7:00 AM8:00 AM9:00 AM10:00 AM11:00 AM12:00 PM1:00 PM2:00 PM3:00 PM4:00 PM5:00 PM6:00 PM7:00 PM8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PMVolume to Capacity Ratio (V/C)Hour Beginning GP v/c HOT v/c Global V/C RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Marketshare Analysis May 9, 2012 7.13 Figure 7-14 SR 91 Eastbound Express Full Toll Traffic Market share vs. Global V/C Data Plot, Weekdays Curves representing unique prices from $1.25 to $10 were fit through available data points. For each price, the data were available for only a limited range of global v/c levels. For example at $1.25, data exist only from the 0.05 to 0.45 range. To create a continuous curve for all V/C values from 0 to 1.30, market shares were estimated for ranges not represented by data. The estimation process relies on data available at higher or lower global V/C’s but at other prices. Elasticity of demand to different prices was calculated and extrapolated for lower and higher prices. At low global v/c’s, it is expected that drivers would be far less willing to pay the tolls that are charged during the most congested times of day (currently nearly $10). To express a reduced willingness to pay, price elasticity in the low congestion range was generally in the elastic range. For higher tolls and the lower end of global V/C, toll traffic would decline by a percentage greater than that of the price increase. However at high global v/c’s, most toll curves show an inelastic response to price increases, but transition from inelastic to elastic as prices increase. For example, for a 0.95 global V/C, toll curves change from inelastic to elastic at the $20 toll level. Effectively this price represents a revenue maximizing toll. The maximizing level was derived from analysis of the income distribution and reported versus actual time savings of SR 91 Express Lanes users. The result was a set of curves representing prices from $1.25 to $32.00 for global V/C’s from 0 to 1.30. Figure 7-15 presents sample toll curves for a $1.25 and $5.60 price (year 2008$’s) for eastbound traffic on a typical weekday. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%0.0000.0500.1000.1500.2000.2500.3000.3500.4000.4500.5000.5500.6000.6500.7000.7500.8000.8500.9000.9501.0001.050Express Full Toll Vehicle Market ShareGlobal V/C Global vs Toll Marketshare Price Group 1 / $1.23 Price Group 2 / $1.90 Price Group 3 / $2.85 Price Group 4 / $3.87 Price Group 5 / $4.16 Price Group 6 / $4.86 Price Group 7 / $5.62 Price Group 8 / $8.21 Price Group 9 / $8.59 Price Group 10 / $9.30 RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Marketshare Analysis May 9, 2012 7.14 Figure 7-15 SR 91 Eastbound Express Weekday Toll Curves Friday toll curves predict lower traffic than the weekday curves do in the 0.30 to 0.75 global v/c ranges. At the 0.60 v/c point, for a toll cost of $3.65, Friday toll traffic was approximately 6% of global traffic while typical weekday share was approximately 8%. Weekend toll curves are similar to weekday levels from the 0.00 to 0.50 global v/c ranges. For higher global v/c’s, weekday toll curves predict more traffic than wee kend toll curves. At the 1.00 global v/c level, weekday curves predict approximately 22% toll market share, while weekend curves predict just over 20%. The weekend curve represents lower demand on weekends, likely from a combination of lower value of time, fewer eligible users, and reduced expectations for high and persistent congestion. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%0.000.050.100.150.200.250.300.350.400.450.500.550.600.650.700.750.800.850.900.951.001.051.10Toll MarketshareGlobal V/C Global vs Toll Marketshare $1.25 Toll $5.60 Toll RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Marketshare Analysis May 9, 2012 7.15 Figure 7-16 SR 91 Eastbound Express Weekday, Friday, and Weekend Toll Curves 7.3.4 Toll Traffic and Revenue Forecast vs. Actual Collectively the toll curves are able to replicate actual full toll traffic and revenue with a reasonable range of precision. Using the weekday (Monday to Thursday), Friday, and weekend full toll traffic curves, predicted full toll traffic over a full w eek was 2.6% higher and revenue was 0.9% lower than actual levels. Weekend traffic and revenue were over-predicted by 7% and 6% respectively, while weekday and Friday traffic and revenue were within 3% of actual. Table 7-1 Eastbound Weekday Full Toll Traffic and Revenue, Model vs. Actual, 2008 to 2009 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10Toll Traffic Market ShareGlobal V/C Weekday Friday Weekend Actual Marketshare Model % Difference Weekday Toll Traffic 17,899 18,318 2.3% Weekday Toll Revenue $87,217 $86,083 -1.3% Friday Full Toll Traffic 20,163 20,122 -0.2% Friday Full Toll Revenue $111,865 $109,378 -2.2% Weekend Full Toll Traffic 8,937 9,566 7.0% Weekend Full Toll Revenue $21,385 $22,676 6.0% Week Full Toll Traffic 109,632 112,526 2.6% Week Full Toll Revenue $503,505 $499,063 -0.9% RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Marketshare Analysis May 9, 2012 7.16 On an hourly basis, average weekday traffic and revenue follow actual hourly trends. Weekday toll curves over-predict AM traffic and revenue levels and slightly under-predict PM peak period traffic and revenue. Friday toll curves also over-predict AM peak period traffic and revenue, and under-predict late evening levels. PM peak period traffic and revenue are on average on par with actual results. Weekend toll curves generally over-predict both traffic and revenue on average Saturdays and Sundays, resulting in traffic and revenue 7% and 6% higher, respectively. However the absolute volume and revenue differences are small compared to weekday and Friday level s, and the curves do a good job of following the intraday changes in actual traffic and revenue. Figure 7-17 SR 91 Express EB, Monday to Thursday Full Toll Hourly Volume, Modeled vs. Actual 0 250 500 750 1,000 1,250 1,500 1,750 2,000 2,250 2,500 2,750 12:00 AM1:00 AM2:00 AM3:00 AM4:00 AM5:00 AM6:00 AM7:00 AM8:00 AM9:00 AM10:00 AM11:00 AM12:00 PM1:00 PM2:00 PM3:00 PM4:00 PM5:00 PM6:00 PM7:00 PM8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PMToll TrafficHour Beginning Actual Toll Volume Modeled RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Marketshare Analysis May 9, 2012 7.17 Figure 7-18 SR 91 Express EB, Monday to Thursday Full Toll Hourly Revenue, Modeled vs. Actual Figure 7-19 SR 91 Express EB, Friday Full Toll Hourly Volume, Modeled vs. Actual $0 $2,500 $5,000 $7,500 $10,000 $12,500 $15,000 $17,500 $20,000 $22,500 12:00 AM1:00 AM2:00 AM3:00 AM4:00 AM5:00 AM6:00 AM7:00 AM8:00 AM9:00 AM10:00 AM11:00 AM12:00 PM1:00 PM2:00 PM3:00 PM4:00 PM5:00 PM6:00 PM7:00 PM8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PMToll RevenueHour Beginning Actual Toll Revenue Modeled 0 250 500 750 1,000 1,250 1,500 1,750 2,000 2,250 2,500 2,750 12:00 AM 3:00 AM 6:00 AM 9:00 AM 12:00 PM 3:00 PM 6:00 PM 9:00 PMToll TrafficHour Beginning Actual Modeled RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Marketshare Analysis May 9, 2012 7.18 Figure 7-20 SR 91 Express EB, Friday Full Toll Hourly Revenue, Modeled vs. Actual Figure 7-21 SR 91 Express EB, Saturday Full Toll Hourly Volume, Modeled vs. Actual $0 $2,250 $4,500 $6,750 $9,000 $11,250 $13,500 $15,750 $18,000 $20,250 $22,500 $24,750 $27,000 12:00 AM 3:00 AM 6:00 AM 9:00 AM 12:00 PM 3:00 PM 6:00 PM 9:00 PMRevenue Hour Beginning Actual Modeled 0 250 500 750 1,000 1,250 1,500 1,750 2,000 2,250 2,500 2,750 12:00 AM1:00 AM2:00 AM3:00 AM4:00 AM5:00 AM6:00 AM7:00 AM8:00 AM9:00 AM10:00 AM11:00 AM12:00 PM1:00 PM2:00 PM3:00 PM4:00 PM5:00 PM6:00 PM7:00 PM8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PMFull Toll VolumeHour Beginning Actual Modeled RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Marketshare Analysis May 9, 2012 7.19 Figure 7-22 SR 91 Express EB, Saturday Full Toll Hourly Revenue, Modeled vs. Actual Figure 7-23 SR 91 Express EB, Sunday Full Toll Hourly Volume, Modeled vs. Actual $0 $2,500 $5,000 $7,500 $10,000 $12,500 $15,000 $17,500 $20,000 $22,500 $25,000 12:00 AM1:00 AM2:00 AM3:00 AM4:00 AM5:00 AM6:00 AM7:00 AM8:00 AM9:00 AM10:00 AM11:00 AM12:00 PM1:00 PM2:00 PM3:00 PM4:00 PM5:00 PM6:00 PM7:00 PM8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PMFull Toll RevenueHour Beginning Actual Modeled 0 250 500 750 1,000 1,250 1,500 1,750 2,000 2,250 2,500 2,750 12:00 AM1:00 AM2:00 AM3:00 AM4:00 AM5:00 AM6:00 AM7:00 AM8:00 AM9:00 AM10:00 AM11:00 AM12:00 PM1:00 PM2:00 PM3:00 PM4:00 PM5:00 PM6:00 PM7:00 PM8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PMFull Toll VolumeHour Beginning Actual Modeled RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Marketshare Analysis May 9, 2012 7.20 Figure 7-24 SR 91 Express EB, Sunday Full Toll Hourly Revenue, Modeled vs. Actual 7.4 APPLICATION TO RIVERSIDE COUNTY EXPRESS LANES To apply the existing SR 91 Express Lanes market share curves for the Riverside County Express Lanes, it is necessary to modify the toll curves to reflect the adjacent lane configuration and future toll structure. The Riverside County Express lanes would be located adjacent to general purpose lanes that would be 5 lanes wide at their most congested locations, while the existing SR 91 Express Lanes are adjacent to 4 lane wide GP lane segments. Tolls are assumed to be initially pegged to the distance of the facility, and the RC Express Lanes would be approximately 2 miles shorter in length. 7.4.1 Lane Configuration Adjustment A set of toll curves reflecting a 5 general purpose lane and 2 Express Lane configuration was developed for application to the Riverside County Express Lanes. In the existing condition, the Orange County SR 91 Express Lanes generally account for one-third of the corridor’s capacity (2 lanes out of the total 6 GP and Express). In the future, GP lane additions in both Orange and Riverside County will increase capacity by 1 to 2 GP lanes. It is believed that if the Express Lanes represent a lower percentage of corridor capacity (about 29% in a 5 GP and 2 XL case, and 25% in a 6 GP and 2 XL case), the shape of the market share curves should be changed to reflect lower toll market shares for the same level of global V/C and price. The downward adjustment maintains the GP and Express Lane volume per lane ratios inherent in the market share curves, $0 $2,500 $5,000 $7,500 $10,000 $12,500 $15,000 $17,500 $20,000 $22,500 $25,000 12:00 AM1:00 AM2:00 AM3:00 AM4:00 AM5:00 AM6:00 AM7:00 AM8:00 AM9:00 AM10:00 AM11:00 AM12:00 PM1:00 PM2:00 PM3:00 PM4:00 PM5:00 PM6:00 PM7:00 PM8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PMFull Toll RevenueHour Beginning Actual Modeled RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Marketshare Analysis May 9, 2012 7.21 but ultimately lowers the level of the curves. Representative weekday toll curves for a 5 general purpose lane and 2 Express Lane configuration and a 4 general purpose and 2 Express Lane configuration are shown in Figure 7-25. Figure 7-25 SR 91 Express EB, Weekday Toll Curve, 4 GP/2XL vs. 5 GP/2 XL 7.4.2 Toll Adjustment The market share curves are applied to the Riverside County Express Lanes on a toll per mile basis. The Orange County SR 91 Express Lanes are approximately 10 miles in each direction and tolls range from $1.30 to $9.50. Each toll curve developed represents the full toll traffic market share for a unique toll charged. The proposed Riverside County SR 91 Express Lanes are overall shorter than the Orange County SR 91 Express Lanes. The extended lanes would span about 7 miles from the western ingress/ egress west of Green River Road to the eastern ingre ss/egress at I-15. Trips starting or ending at the southern ingress/egress on I -15 would travel about 10 miles on the Express Lanes. To account for the RC XL’s shorter trips, market shares are assumed to apply on a toll rate per mile basis. That is, the market share for a given v/c level and $5 toll on the Orange County SR 91 Express Lanes will also be used on the Riverside County Express Lanes but the toll charged would be 50 cents per mile. For a 7 -mile trip, the Riverside County Express Lane charge would be $3.50 while a 10-mile trip would still be $5.00. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10Full Toll Market ShareGlobal V/C 4 GP, 2 XL 5 GP, 2 XL RIVERSIDE COUNTY 91 8.1 8.0 Tolled Traffic and Revenue Estimates 8.1 TOLL POLICY There are several methods to approach the setting of tolls for the RCTC SR 91 Express Lanes project. As part of this study, traffic and revenue streams were estimated for two different tolling policies: 1) implementing the existing OCTA toll policy and 2) implementing an “enhanced” toll policy that is based on the OCTA policy, but allows for the increase of off-peak toll rates once certain volume thresholds are exceeded. The enhanced policy is similar to the OCTA policy as it ties toll increases to traffic volumes, though it allows greater toll flexibility during non-peak periods. 8.1.1 OCTA SR 91 TOLL POLICY We began by reviewing and implementing the toll policy begun and being used for the OCTA SR 91 project in Orange County. Historically, when the SR 91 project was owned and operated by private owners from 1995 to 2002, tolls were increased in response to general traffic demand i n the corridor. The level of tolls roughly matched the level of traffic demand on the Express lanes, as shown in the following charts: Figure 8-1 SR 91 Express EB Tolls, 1997-1999 RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Tolled Traffic and Revenue Estimates May 9, 2012 8.2 Figure 8-2 SR 91 Express WB Tolls, 1997-1999 Tolls were set to match this pattern, but were then changed as the value of the lanes became more apparent, as the private owners were attempting to judge what level of toll was appropriate for each time period. Figure 8-3 SR 91 Express EB Tolls, 1997-2010 RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Tolled Traffic and Revenue Estimates May 9, 2012 8.3 Of particular interest is the increase in tolls in the off peak period, for example the middle of the night, which began at $0.25 in 1995 and quickly increased to $1.00 by March of 2000. The acquisition of the privately owned facility by OCTA in 2002 changed the nature of the toll policy. The focus by OCTA was on peak period “throughput” of traffic, rather than revenue producing potential and as such, their toll policy reflected this interest. OCTA set up a 12 week rolling period of backward looking review of traffic volumes for each of the 168 hours per week, but only would change tolls if hourly traffic met certain traffic volume thre sholds, as indicated in the chart below. All other periods were only increased by cost of living adjustments annually. Figure 8-4 OCTA Toll Policy The results of this change in toll policy changed how tol ls increased over time, with a greater emphasis on peak periods than previously. As a result, the relative shape of the toll rate curve became somewhat out of sync with the traffic demand as demonstrated by the following chart. RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Tolled Traffic and Revenue Estimates May 9, 2012 8.4 Figure 8-5 OCTA Toll Policy Toll rates have the same sharp peak as they did in the 1990s, when traffic also demonstrated a very sharp peaking pattern. The good news for OCTA is that the toll policy has met its objectives of focusing on peak period growth, such that the peak hours have shown the lowest growth of any hourly period during the typical weekday. Figure 8-6 OCTA Toll Policy RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Tolled Traffic and Revenue Estimates May 9, 2012 8.5 Applying the OCTA toll policy to our 2035 traffic forecasts results in a toll schedule as shown in Table 8-1 below. Table 8-1 2035 EB Toll Schedule, OCTA Toll Policy (2008 $s) 8.1.2 ENHANCED SR 91 TOLL POLICY A variation of the base toll created reflects the ability of the Express Lanes to capture greater revenue potential than implied in the OCTA Toll Policy by moving rates upward each year at their value points, rather than at prescribed formulas. This allows a greater toll rate and generates additional revenue compared to the OCTA Toll Policy, as demonstrated in Figure 8-7. Time Sun Mon - Thurs Fri Sat 12:00 AM $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 1:00 AM $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 2:00 AM $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 3:00 AM $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 4:00 AM $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 5:00 AM $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 6:00 AM $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 7:00 AM $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 8:00 AM $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 9:00 AM $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 $1.70 10:00 AM $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 $1.70 11:00 AM $1.70 $1.10 $1.10 $1.70 12:00 PM $1.70 $1.10 $1.70 $1.70 1:00 PM $1.70 $1.70 $2.50 $1.70 2:00 PM $1.70 $2.50 $3.35 $2.50 3:00 PM $1.70 $3.35 $4.20 $2.50 4:00 PM $1.70 $4.20 $7.15 $2.50 5:00 PM $1.70 $4.20 $8.10 $2.50 6:00 PM $1.70 $4.20 $8.70 $2.50 7:00 PM $1.70 $3.35 $3.35 $1.70 8:00 PM $1.70 $1.70 $3.35 $1.70 9:00 PM $1.70 $1.10 $2.50 $1.70 10:00 PM $1.10 $1.10 $1.70 $1.70 11:00 PM $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Tolled Traffic and Revenue Estimates May 9, 2012 8.6 Figure 8-7 OCTA Toll Policy vs. Enhanced Toll Policy . As the chart above demonstrates, over time, as traffic grows in the shoulder and off -peak hours, the rates charged under the existing OCTA toll policy (shown in blue) fall below the potential value of the trip at various traffic levels (shown in red). The enhanced policy allows for the adjustments of these rates on a yearly basis as necessary to more closely replicate traffic volumes. As an example, using the OCTA toll policy a rate per mile of approximately $0.30 would be charged for the HOT traffic volu me of 2,500 in the chart above compared to almost $0.50 per mile under the enhanced toll policy. RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Tolled Traffic and Revenue Estimates May 9, 2012 8.7 Applying the enhanced toll policy to our 2035 traffic forecasts results in a toll schedule as shown in Table 8-2 below. Table 8-2 2035 EB Toll Schedule, Enhanced Toll Policy (2008 $s) Of particular interest in the toll schedule above is the difference between the shoulder and off - peak rates between applying the OCTA toll policy versus the enhanced policy. While overnight rates are the same, some hours vary quite dramatically. For example, the 4-5PM hour under the OCTA policy would result in a toll rate of $4.20 as toll volumes do not exceed the 3,200 volume threshold for an increase. This same hour under the enhanced toll policy results in a toll rate of $7.15. 8.2 TRAFFIC AND REVENUE ESTIMATES Utilizing the data and methodologies outlined throughout this report, fifty year traffic and revenue streams were estimated for both the OCTA and enhanced toll policies. The detailed results are shown in Table 8-3 and Table 8-4 below. Time Sun Mon-Thurs Fri Sat 12:00 AM $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 1:00 AM $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 2:00 AM $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 3:00 AM $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 4:00 AM $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 5:00 AM $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 6:00 AM $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 7:00 AM $1.10 $1.70 $1.70 $1.10 8:00 AM $1.10 $1.70 $1.70 $1.70 9:00 AM $1.10 $1.70 $1.10 $1.70 10:00 AM $1.70 $1.70 $1.70 $2.50 11:00 AM $1.70 $1.70 $1.70 $2.50 12:00 PM $2.50 $1.70 $2.50 $2.50 1:00 PM $2.50 $2.50 $3.35 $2.50 2:00 PM $2.50 $4.20 $4.90 $3.35 3:00 PM $2.50 $5.55 $7.15 $3.35 4:00 PM $2.50 $7.15 $7.15 $4.20 5:00 PM $2.50 $7.15 $8.10 $4.20 6:00 PM $2.50 $7.15 $8.10 $3.35 7:00 PM $2.50 $5.55 $5.55 $2.50 8:00 PM $2.50 $2.50 $4.90 $1.70 9:00 PM $1.70 $1.70 $3.35 $1.70 10:00 PM $1.10 $1.10 $1.70 $1.70 11:00 PM $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 $1.70 RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Tolled Traffic and Revenue Estimates May 9, 2012 8.8 Both toll policies have similar patterns for traffic growth, with global corridor traffic growing by slightly more than 1 percent until 2035, when traffic growth slows to approximately 0.5 percent per year. Express Lane transactions grow by approximately 3 percent per year for the OCTA toll policy case versus approximately 2.6 percent in the enhanced case. This slight reduction in transaction growth can be attributed to the higher toll rates charged under the enhanced toll policy. The largest difference is in revenue growth, where the OCTA toll policy grows just under 4 percent per year, the enhanced toll policy leads to revenue growth of 6 percent per year. Again, this is attributable to higher toll rates during the shoulder and off -peak hours under the enhanced toll policy. The average toll rate in 2035 under the OCTA toll policy is $2.42 with total annual transactions of 14.6M and total revenue of $35.5M versus an average toll rate of $3.59 for the enhanced toll policy with total annual transactions of 13.8M and total annual revenue of $47.4M (2008 $). A decrease in transactions and revenue occurs in 2035 with the completion of the “Ultimate” project, which adds general purpose lane capacity to the corridor. RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Tolled Traffic and Revenue Estimates May 9, 2012 8.9 Table 8-3 Traffic and Revenue Estimates, OCTA Toll Policy Fiscal Year Weekday Toll Transactions Weekday Express Transactions Express Market Share Weekday Revenue 08$'s Average Toll (2008$'s) Annual Toll Transactions Annual Revenue 08$'s Annual Revenue (Nominal $'s) 2017 9,100 11,600 4%$2,705 $2.09 404,497 $844,462 $1,101,886 2018 13,050 16,600 6%$29,038 $2.12 5,335,303 $11,326,038 $15,012,114 2019 20,450 25,850 9%$46,785 $2.20 6,652,550 $14,610,500 $19,984,000 2020 26,000 32,800 11%$61,226 $2.24 8,483,050 $19,016,500 $26,754,500 2021 28,600 36,050 12%$68,410 $2.26 9,362,900 $21,206,000 $30,698,000 2022 29,600 37,150 12%$71,040 $2.28 9,692,400 $22,132,000 $32,999,500 2023 30,600 38,250 13%$73,686 $2.30 10,033,500 $23,099,000 $35,474,500 2024 31,650 39,400 13%$76,469 $2.32 10,386,600 $24,108,000 $38,135,000 2025 32,750 40,600 13%$79,392 $2.34 10,752,100 $25,160,500 $40,994,000 2026 33,850 41,750 13%$82,334 $2.36 11,130,450 $26,259,500 $44,068,000 2027 35,000 42,950 13%$85,416 $2.38 11,522,100 $27,406,500 $47,372,500 2028 36,200 44,250 14%$88,641 $2.40 11,927,550 $28,603,500 $50,925,000 2029 37,450 45,600 14%$92,009 $2.42 12,347,300 $29,853,000 $54,744,000 2030 38,750 47,000 14%$95,522 $2.44 12,781,800 $31,156,500 $58,848,000 2031 40,050 48,400 14%$99,057 $2.46 13,231,550 $32,517,000 $63,260,500 2032 41,400 49,850 15%$102,739 $2.48 13,697,100 $33,937,000 $68,004,000 2033 42,800 51,350 15%$106,569 $2.50 14,179,050 $35,419,000 $73,103,000 2034 44,250 52,900 15%$110,549 $2.52 14,678,000 $36,966,000 $78,584,500 2035 44,250 52,750 15%$106,904 $2.43 14,646,400 $35,541,500 $77,726,500 2036 43,750 52,050 15%$102,909 $2.34 14,451,100 $33,836,000 $76,304,000 2037 44,250 52,600 15%$106,379 $2.38 14,632,400 $34,870,000 $80,995,000 2038 44,750 53,150 16%$109,952 $2.43 14,815,950 $35,935,500 $85,974,000 2039 45,350 53,800 16%$113,885 $2.48 15,060,700 $37,344,000 $92,035,000 2040 45,950 54,450 16%$117,932 $2.53 15,303,100 $38,766,500 $98,394,000 2041 46,450 55,000 16%$121,842 $2.58 15,484,150 $39,891,500 $104,287,000 2042 46,950 55,550 16%$125,867 $2.62 15,667,300 $41,049,000 $110,532,500 2043 47,450 56,050 16%$130,010 $2.66 15,852,600 $42,240,000 $117,151,500 2044 47,950 56,600 16%$134,275 $2.71 16,040,100 $43,465,500 $124,166,500 2045 48,450 57,150 16%$138,664 $2.76 16,229,850 $44,726,500 $131,602,000 2046 48,950 57,650 16%$143,182 $2.80 16,421,850 $46,024,000 $139,482,500 2047 49,450 58,150 16%$147,832 $2.85 16,616,100 $47,359,500 $147,835,500 2048 49,950 58,700 16%$152,617 $2.90 16,812,650 $48,734,000 $156,690,000 2049 50,450 59,250 16%$157,541 $2.95 17,011,550 $50,148,000 $166,073,500 2050 51,000 59,850 16%$162,769 $3.00 17,212,800 $51,603,000 $176,018,500 2051 51,550 60,500 17%$168,091 $3.05 17,409,400 $53,050,500 $186,382,000 2052 52,050 61,050 17%$173,345 $3.10 17,601,250 $54,488,500 $197,177,500 2053 52,550 61,600 17%$178,747 $3.14 17,795,200 $55,965,000 $208,596,500 2054 53,050 62,150 17%$184,300 $3.19 17,991,300 $57,482,000 $220,678,000 2055 53,550 62,700 17%$190,009 $3.25 18,189,600 $59,040,500 $233,461,000 2056 54,050 63,250 17%$195,878 $3.30 18,390,100 $60,640,500 $246,981,500 2057 54,550 63,800 17%$201,911 $3.35 18,592,800 $62,284,000 $261,285,500 2058 55,050 64,350 17%$208,113 $3.40 18,797,700 $63,972,500 $276,420,000 2059 55,550 64,900 17%$214,487 $3.46 19,004,850 $65,706,500 $292,429,500 2060 56,050 65,450 17%$221,038 $3.51 19,214,300 $67,487,500 $309,366,500 2061 56,550 66,000 17%$227,771 $3.57 19,426,050 $69,316,500 $327,283,500 2062 57,050 66,550 17%$234,691 $3.62 19,640,150 $71,195,500 $346,240,000 2063 57,550 67,100 17%$241,803 $3.68 19,856,600 $73,125,500 $366,294,500 2064 58,100 67,700 17%$249,329 $3.74 20,075,400 $75,107,000 $387,507,000 2065 58,800 68,400 17%$257,725 $3.80 20,296,700 $77,143,000 $409,952,000 2066 59,500 69,150 18%$266,356 $3.86 20,520,450 $79,234,500 $433,698,500 2067 60,100 69,800 18%$274,787 $3.92 20,746,600 $81,382,000 $458,817,000 2068 q1 60,700 70,450 18%$283,456 $3.99 5,243,813 $20,897,000 $121,347,875 RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Tolled Traffic and Revenue Estimates May 9, 2012 8.10 Table 8-4 Traffic and Revenue Estimates, Enhanced Toll Policy Fiscal Year Weekday Toll Transactions Weekday Express Transactions Express Market Share Weekday Revenue 08$'s Average Toll (2008$'s) Annual Toll Transactions Annual Revenue 08$'s Annual Revenue (Nominal $'s) 2017 9,100 11,600 4%$2,705 $2.09 404,497 $844,462 $1,101,886 2018 13,050 16,600 6%$29,038 $2.12 5,335,303 $11,326,038 $15,012,114 2019 20,450 25,850 9%$46,785 $2.20 6,652,550 $14,610,500 $19,984,000 2020 26,000 32,800 11%$61,226 $2.24 8,483,050 $19,016,500 $26,754,500 2021 28,500 35,950 12%$69,097 $2.29 9,343,100 $21,421,000 $31,013,500 2022 29,350 36,900 12%$73,309 $2.37 9,631,700 $22,799,500 $33,999,500 2023 30,250 37,900 12%$77,838 $2.44 9,929,200 $24,266,500 $37,273,000 2024 31,150 38,900 13%$82,574 $2.52 10,235,850 $25,828,000 $40,861,500 2025 32,100 39,950 13%$87,664 $2.61 10,552,000 $27,490,000 $44,795,500 2026 33,100 41,000 13%$93,124 $2.69 10,877,950 $29,259,500 $49,109,500 2027 34,100 42,050 13%$98,834 $2.78 11,213,950 $31,142,500 $53,838,000 2028 35,100 43,150 13%$104,805 $2.87 11,560,300 $33,146,500 $59,021,500 2029 36,150 44,300 14%$111,201 $2.96 11,917,350 $35,279,500 $64,704,500 2030 37,250 45,500 14%$118,045 $3.06 12,285,450 $37,550,000 $70,934,500 2031 38,350 46,700 14%$125,200 $3.16 12,664,900 $39,966,500 $77,764,000 2032 39,500 47,950 14%$132,851 $3.26 13,056,050 $42,538,000 $85,250,500 2033 40,700 49,250 14%$141,020 $3.36 13,459,300 $45,275,500 $93,459,000 2034 41,900 50,550 15%$149,562 $3.47 13,875,000 $48,189,000 $102,457,500 2035 41,800 50,300 15%$150,064 $3.43 13,833,500 $47,423,000 $103,732,500 2036 41,300 49,600 15%$148,003 $3.35 13,660,100 $45,762,000 $103,195,500 2037 41,700 50,050 15%$151,646 $3.40 13,819,250 $46,992,500 $109,149,500 2038 42,100 50,500 15%$155,365 $3.45 13,980,250 $48,256,500 $115,448,000 2039 42,700 51,150 15%$159,744 $3.53 14,192,600 $50,031,500 $123,302,500 2040 43,300 51,800 15%$164,224 $3.60 14,402,850 $51,809,000 $131,493,500 2041 43,700 52,250 15%$168,224 $3.65 14,561,450 $53,111,500 $138,843,500 2042 44,100 52,700 15%$172,307 $3.70 14,721,800 $54,446,500 $146,603,500 2043 44,500 53,100 15%$176,474 $3.75 14,883,900 $55,815,000 $154,797,000 2044 44,900 53,550 15%$180,728 $3.80 15,047,800 $57,218,000 $163,448,500 2045 45,300 54,000 15%$185,070 $3.86 15,213,500 $58,656,500 $172,584,500 2046 45,700 54,400 15%$189,501 $3.91 15,381,050 $60,131,000 $182,231,000 2047 46,100 54,800 15%$194,023 $3.96 15,550,450 $61,642,500 $192,416,000 2048 46,550 55,300 15%$198,854 $4.02 15,721,700 $63,192,500 $203,171,500 2049 47,050 55,850 15%$204,001 $4.08 15,894,850 $64,781,000 $214,527,000 2050 47,650 56,500 16%$209,701 $4.13 16,069,950 $66,409,500 $226,517,500 2051 48,200 57,150 16%$215,464 $4.19 16,241,200 $68,069,000 $239,142,500 2052 48,600 57,600 16%$220,850 $4.25 16,408,450 $69,759,500 $252,434,500 2053 49,000 58,050 16%$226,356 $4.31 16,577,400 $71,492,000 $266,465,000 2054 49,400 58,500 16%$231,984 $4.37 16,748,100 $73,268,000 $281,277,000 2055 49,800 58,950 16%$237,736 $4.44 16,920,550 $75,087,500 $296,910,000 2056 50,200 59,400 16%$243,614 $4.50 17,094,750 $76,952,000 $313,411,000 2057 50,600 59,850 16%$249,623 $4.57 17,270,750 $78,863,500 $330,832,000 2058 51,000 60,300 16%$255,763 $4.63 17,448,600 $80,822,500 $349,221,500 2059 51,400 60,750 16%$262,039 $4.70 17,628,300 $82,830,000 $368,632,500 2060 51,800 61,200 16%$268,452 $4.77 17,809,850 $84,887,000 $389,120,500 2061 52,200 61,650 16%$275,006 $4.83 17,993,250 $86,995,000 $410,747,000 2062 52,650 62,150 16%$281,973 $4.90 18,178,500 $89,155,500 $433,576,500 2063 53,150 62,700 16%$289,366 $4.98 18,365,700 $91,370,000 $457,676,500 2064 53,650 63,250 16%$296,926 $5.05 18,554,850 $93,639,500 $483,116,000 2065 54,250 63,850 16%$305,224 $5.12 18,745,950 $95,965,500 $509,970,000 2066 54,850 64,500 16%$313,706 $5.19 18,939,000 $98,349,500 $538,317,500 2067 55,350 65,050 16%$321,809 $5.27 19,134,000 $100,792,000 $568,237,000 2068 q1 55,850 65,600 16%$330,095 $5.34 4,832,750 $25,823,750 $149,954,750 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 91 9.1 9.0 Sensitivity Analyses 9.1 REVENUE MAXIMIZATION The theory of toll pricing relates to the traditional supply-demand relationships seen elsewhere in economic literature. As prices rise, demand drops. At the critical price point, demand produces a maximum amount of potential revenue. As shown in this example, traffic declines as prices rise in a continuous albeit non-linear fashion. Figure 9-1 Traffic’s Response to Toll Increases In this example, a toll rise from $0.25 to $0.50 produces a 20% decline in traffic demand. At various points along this curve, the traffic multiplied times the toll rate produces the revenue for the policy. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 $0.25 $0.50 $0.75 $1.00 $1.25 $1.50 $1.75 $2.00 Traffic RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Sensitivity Analyses May 9, 2012 9.2 Figure 9-2 Typical Traffic vs. Revenue Curves In this example, $0.25 *100= $25, $1.00 *72= $72 and $2.00 *46= $92. At low end of the curve, revenue increases at nearly linear rates with increased toll rates Figure 9-3 Typical Traffic vs. Revenue Curves 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 $0.25$0.50$0.75$1.00$1.25$1.50$1.75$2.00$2.25$2.50$2.75$3.00$3.25$3.50$3.75Traffic Revenue 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 $0.25$0.50$0.75$1.00$1.25$1.50$1.75$2.00$2.25$2.50$2.75$3.00$3.25$3.50$3.75Traffic Revenue RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Sensitivity Analyses May 9, 2012 9.3 As rates increase, revenue increases begin to slow. Figure 9-4 Typical Traffic vs. Revenue Curves As rates approach optimal, revenue increases are nearly zero, and the curve become flat . Figure 9-5 Typical Traffic vs. Revenue Curves 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 $0.25$0.50$0.75$1.00$1.25$1.50$1.75$2.00$2.25$2.50$2.75$3.00$3.25$3.50$3.75Traffic Revenue 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 $0.25$0.50$0.75$1.00$1.25$1.50$1.75$2.00$2.25$2.50$2.75$3.00$3.25$3.50$3.75Traffic Revenue RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Sensitivity Analyses May 9, 2012 9.4 As rates go beyond optimal, revenues decline. Figure 9-6 Typical Traffic vs. Revenue Curves From a planning perspective, one may ask, Where is the Optimal point on the revenue curve? • A: Point of highest revenue, the maximum revenue point, or • B: Optimal Toll, appoint slightly below the highest point which reflects the nature of the forecasting process and provides a “cushion” in the forecast. We have applied this concept to the RCTC SR 91 Express lane project to create a revenue maximization toll policy. The revenue maximization toll policy has a similar pattern for traffic growth, with global corridor traffic growing by slightly more than 1 percent until 2035, when traffic growth slows to approximately 0.5 percent per year. Express Lane transactions grow by approximately 3 percent per year Revenues grow at about 6 percent per year until 2035 and 2 percent per year after 2035. The average toll rate in 2035 under the revenue maximization toll policy is $7.09 with total annual transactions of 11.5M and total revenue of $81.5M (2008 $). A decrease in transactions and revenue occurs in 2035 with the completion of the “Ultimate” project, which adds general purpose lane capacity to the corridor. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 $0.25$0.50$0.75$1.00$1.25$1.50$1.75$2.00$2.25$2.50$2.75$3.00$3.25$3.50$3.75Traffic Revenue RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-91 Sensitivity Analyses May 9, 2012 9.5 Table 9-1 Traffic and Revenue Estimates, Revenue Maximization Toll Policy Fiscal Year Weekday Toll Transactions Weekday Express Transactions Express Market Share Weekday Revenue 08$'s Average Toll (2008$'s) Annual Toll Transactions Annual Revenue 08$'s Annual Revenue (Nominal $'s) 2017 7,400 9,900 3%$4,950 $4.43 328,768 $1,457,514 $1,901,674 2018 10,600 14,150 5%$52,877 $4.50 4,338,732 $19,535,986 $25,892,826 2019 16,600 22,050 8%$84,667 $4.65 5,415,850 $25,169,000 $34,425,000 2020 21,250 28,100 10%$110,062 $4.74 6,903,650 $32,741,000 $46,063,000 2021 23,500 30,950 10%$123,778 $4.85 7,602,550 $36,855,500 $53,359,500 2022 24,300 31,850 11%$131,071 $4.99 7,845,500 $39,179,500 $58,426,000 2023 25,100 32,750 11%$138,644 $5.14 8,096,250 $41,650,000 $63,973,500 2024 25,950 33,700 11%$146,791 $5.30 8,355,000 $44,276,500 $70,048,000 2025 26,850 34,700 11%$155,536 $5.46 8,622,000 $47,068,500 $76,699,000 2026 27,750 35,650 11%$164,617 $5.62 8,897,550 $50,036,500 $83,981,500 2027 28,650 36,600 11%$174,045 $5.79 9,181,900 $53,191,500 $91,955,000 2028 29,600 37,650 12%$184,146 $5.97 9,475,300 $56,545,500 $100,685,500 2029 30,600 38,750 12%$194,948 $6.15 9,778,100 $60,111,000 $110,245,500 2030 31,600 39,850 12%$206,162 $6.33 10,090,600 $63,901,500 $120,713,500 2031 32,650 41,000 12%$218,142 $6.52 10,413,050 $67,931,000 $132,175,000 2032 33,750 42,200 12%$230,916 $6.72 10,745,800 $72,214,000 $144,724,000 2033 34,850 43,400 13%$244,179 $6.92 11,089,200 $76,767,500 $158,465,000 2034 36,000 44,650 13%$258,310 $7.13 11,443,600 $81,608,500 $173,511,500 2035 36,500 45,000 13%$258,743 $7.08 11,506,800 $81,495,500 $178,304,500 2036 36,450 44,750 13%$253,939 $6.97 11,435,300 $79,739,000 $179,808,500 2037 36,550 44,900 13%$258,254 $7.07 11,526,250 $81,459,000 $189,197,500 2038 36,650 45,050 13%$262,639 $7.16 11,617,900 $83,216,000 $199,076,500 2039 36,900 45,350 13%$268,674 $7.28 11,753,750 $85,519,500 $210,743,000 2040 37,150 45,650 13%$274,761 $7.39 11,886,700 $87,825,500 $222,897,500 2041 37,250 45,800 13%$279,325 $7.49 11,973,200 $89,624,000 $234,286,000 2042 37,350 45,950 13%$283,963 $7.58 12,060,350 $91,459,000 $246,255,500 2043 37,450 46,050 13%$288,676 $7.68 12,148,150 $93,332,000 $258,837,500 2044 37,550 46,200 13%$293,466 $7.78 12,236,550 $95,243,000 $272,061,500 2045 37,650 46,350 13%$298,332 $7.89 12,325,600 $97,193,000 $285,961,000 2046 37,750 46,450 13%$303,278 $7.99 12,415,300 $99,183,500 $300,571,500 2047 37,850 46,550 13%$308,302 $8.09 12,505,650 $101,214,500 $315,928,000 2048 37,950 46,700 13%$313,409 $8.20 12,596,650 $103,286,500 $332,067,500 2049 38,050 46,850 13%$318,597 $8.31 12,688,300 $105,401,500 $349,033,000 2050 38,400 47,250 13%$326,006 $8.42 12,780,650 $107,560,000 $366,866,500 2051 38,900 47,850 13%$333,881 $8.51 12,900,200 $109,736,500 $385,517,500 2052 39,300 48,300 13%$340,083 $8.58 13,047,450 $111,931,000 $405,023,500 2053 39,700 48,750 13%$346,364 $8.65 13,196,400 $114,169,500 $425,517,500 2054 40,100 49,200 13%$352,726 $8.72 13,347,050 $116,453,000 $447,049,500 2055 40,500 49,650 13%$359,168 $8.80 13,499,400 $118,782,000 $469,670,000 2056 40,900 50,100 13%$365,693 $8.87 13,653,500 $121,158,000 $493,436,500 2057 41,300 50,550 13%$372,300 $8.95 13,809,400 $123,582,000 $518,408,000 2058 41,700 51,000 13%$378,992 $9.03 13,967,050 $126,053,500 $544,639,000 2059 42,100 51,450 14%$385,768 $9.10 14,126,500 $128,574,500 $572,197,500 2060 42,500 51,900 14%$392,629 $9.18 14,287,800 $131,146,500 $601,153,000 2061 42,900 52,350 14%$399,578 $9.26 14,450,900 $133,769,500 $631,571,500 2062 43,300 52,800 14%$406,614 $9.34 14,615,850 $136,445,000 $663,529,500 2063 43,700 53,250 14%$413,739 $9.41 14,782,700 $139,174,000 $697,104,500 2064 44,100 53,700 14%$420,953 $9.49 14,951,450 $141,957,500 $732,378,000 2065 44,400 54,000 14%$427,291 $9.58 15,122,150 $144,797,000 $769,438,500 2066 44,700 54,350 14%$433,713 $9.66 15,294,800 $147,693,500 $808,375,000 2067 45,100 54,800 14%$441,186 $9.74 15,469,400 $150,647,500 $849,279,500 2068 q1 45,500 55,250 14%$448,753 $9.82 3,911,500 $38,415,125 $223,063,375 RCTC 91 Express Lanes Toll Policy For Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee May21, 2012 Toll policy includes establishing toll rates: Basis for traffic and revenue (T and R) study Toll revenue projection: Key ingredient of the Commission's financial plan Financially feasible project: Successful TIFIA application and bond sales 5/17/2012 1 Corridor Efficiency Customer commute Optimize vehicle throughput Future corridor improvements Financial Commitments Meet debt obligations Sustain financial viability Meet bond covenants Lane Access Vehicle occupancy Balance payers and carpoolers 5/17/2012 2 • Time of day and day of week pricing based on actual congestion levels • Hourly price changes published on web page, corridor signs, and other locations • Prices automatically adjusted quarterly based on pre -defined formula • Toll rates go up and down based on market demand experienced over prior 12-week period • Rates are not subsidized by the Commission , users pay full fare • HOV 3+ ride free during most periods Existing OCTA Policy (base case) Enhanced Policy (proposed Commission policy) Revenue Maximization Policy (sensitivity case) • Exact match to current OCTA policy • Based on OCTA toll policy, same rates during peak periods • Higher toll rates during off-peak, based on traffic volumes • Better matches pricing to meet demand • Toll rates set to maximize revenue • Analyzed as a financial sensitivity case to support financing • Serves as contingency for capital markets 5/17/2012 3 ()11 f>olicv l'vionitoring f>rocess .· ._. MorULar hourly, day of wull md directional traffic far last 1:2 c ansecutivt weel.ls (exclude days~urs wilh ho1id~,majar iru:idel:l1S,md accidel:l1S) Flag hours wrun traffic volllmt is 3,1:28 or mare vth:icle s per hour, per day, per direction. Deten:nine it this occurs six or more times in tlu 1:2-week period. Avtn~ tlu trdic volllmt far t1u flaw d hours. Increase Hourly Toll $1.00 \1onitor Traflic 12 Rolling W eEk'i Increase Hourly Toll $0.7S No Do Notlaaease HoudyToll ~IE f'l'" Lan•• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 q q 0 q 0 q q 0 0 00 ,...... 1.0 1.(') :i ('V") N ~ g -(/). -(/). -(/). -(/). -(/). -(/). -(/). 11:00 PM 10:00 PM 9:00PM 8:00PM .~ I I I I I I VI I I 7:00PM ..... '1i1 I I I I 6:00PM t:.l I I 5:00PM "' ~I I I .I I I ~I I I I 4:00PM 13:00 PM ...., nil a::: I I I I I II... I 2:00PM -I I I I I I I ,.I 1-1:00PM -{i.l I I I I I I I' I -12:00PM "'I cv I I I I I I I' I • 11:00AM cl "' I I I I I I 1111 L .• 10:00AM -'I I I I I I I tli. 'l:ii • 9:00AM "' "'I cv I I I I I I 1111 , • 8:00AM Q.l I I I I I I Ill.. I • 7:00AM )(I w I I I I I I I -• 6:00AM ..-II I I I I I I I 1111 I 5:00AM 0'\ 4:00AM 3:00AM 2:00AM 1:00AM 12:00AM I I I I I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 ~ 8 ~ 8 ~ 8 ~ 1.(') ..q~ '<3"~ ('V")~ m r-J N' .-1 .-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 00 ,.... 1.0 l.f') .;;t m N .-i 0 '(/'). '(/'). '(/'). '(/'). '(/'). '(/'). '(/'). '(/'). '(/'). .J_ .1. L .1. 11:00 PM 10:00 PM 9:00PM 8:00PM u 7:00PM ·-~ 1-~ R'l 6:00PM ... .... 5:00PM "' > 4:00PM "' QJ 3:00PM .. R'l 2:00PM a: -1:00PM -~ 12:00 PM "' ll:OOAM QJ c !O:OOAM ~ !/) Q) 9:00AM :"Q "' ..c: "' Q) 8:00AM > QJ co ... N c. C'i 7:00AM )( 6:00AM w ,_ ..... 5:00AM en ,_ I 4:00AM l- I 3:00AM ,_ 2:00AM 1:00AM ,_ I !2:00AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l.f') 0 l.f') o, l.f') o, l.f') 0 l.f') .;;t' .;;t' m' m N' N .-i' .-i' 0 't""'' 0 ~ 't""'' 8 N .... .s::. i 0 ... " tn w ell ell Ql ... a. )( w 't""'' en 0 IJ"l ..,:. 8 ..,:. 0 IJ"l m 8 m 0 IJ"l C'l -~ ro <IJ 0.. • ~ ro <IJ 0.. -.!.. 0 .. -8 C'l I I I I I I I I I 0 IJ"l ,..j ;) Y:fi!Jl tea o~ ot~ o1:ael:l 8 ,..j ' 0 IJ"l d t 8 d 11:00 PM 10:00 PM 9:00PM 8:00PM 7:00PM 6:00PM 5:00PM 4:00PM 3:00PM 2:00PM 1:00PM 12:00 PM ll:OOAM lO:OOAM 9:00AM 8:00AM 7:00AM 6:00AM 5:00AM 4:00AM 3:00AM 2:00AM 1:00AM 12:00AM HOT Traffic vs. Toll Rate Charged • 2008 EB HOTTRAFFICVS TOLLS-DATA •Base Toll •Enhanced Toll .. ~I I I I I I I I I I I 3.~0 +--------+--------t--------r--------t-------~------~~------~------~--------1-------~ 3,000 2.~0 -! . i.:. I I . I :i.!iL;·,l: .. ~+-r--t-~ E I . ' ~! j ••. ';; : : ''~ . . . i' u' ;. , n 1---1----t---t---1----~ ' : il----w~t ·;·~ :l.l; ---t----:t------:-· ~i · .. , : . · H ____ :]!u~L·~·~----I--1r--t---r---1.~0 tt 1 l t j r;e: :. , ; 1 .• ,• •: . tooo. I ' I I I ~I II., I I I I-I I · . o I $0.000 $0.100 $0.200 $0.300 $0.400 $0.500 $0.600 $0.700 $0.800 $0.900 $1.000 Toll per Mile (2008$'s) Descr,pt•on/ Detlll Ma'lttoradjust~d hcnxty, dlfectional traffic ta lest 12 consecuttve weeks( exclude d""s/hot.rs w«h hcHdavs, maja ''"dent~ acciCients) FIZS~tndNidu!i adjusted hoU"S whl!n trafftc volume IS 3,128 vehicles or less per hell', per di!V per dJrectton Determine If this oa:urssix a maenmesinthe 12 week per; ad Avenwe thetr~tevo ~.me for the ho\.r, datf ~d direct,on fcx the 12 week penod (ecclude holiday~ accid~ts, mi!ljor inc<t.,ts). set Toll taeJorv A $1.55/ suo set Toll CltepV 8 suo I 52.:10 SetTonC~tepVC S'-75/52.85 SetTDIICauiDI'\'0 ~l0/$3.60 setToiiC~tepyE $5.45/ $A.lS 91 Express Lanes Toll Rates vs Traffic 4,500 $8.00 4,000 -$7.00 3,500 e. $6.00 3,128 vehicles ____ - - - - - - - - - -3,000 -....:_:2;n)o ~eh-i~l;s~-:_:-~-=-=-~-=-=-:...:-=------------------------$5.00 2 500 2,400 vehicles I -----------------------------t-$4.00 2POO I • 1 ,600 vehicles - - - - -__ r_ $3.00 1,500 ....__-----------------~-1,000 800 vehicles t-$2.00 500 Traffic -. $1.00 0 ......... .,------;--~-1 -T-I-,..... ""T-•r• • -• ·'T--,. -'T I -T·--.......-.. $0.00 .... .... N w .;.. \.n 0'1 -...I 00 \.0 .... .... .... .... N w .;.. \.n 0'1 -...I 00 \.0 .... .... N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .... N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ .... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > > > > > > > > > 0 0 0 ., ., ., ., ., ., ., ., ., 0 0 > s::: s:: s::: s::: s::: s:: s::: s::: s::: > > ., s:: s:: s:: s:: s::: s::: s:: s:: s:: ., ., s:: s::: s:: s:: s::: s:: OCTA Policy-2035 EB Rates Enhanced Policy-2035 EB Rates Time Sun Mon-Thurs Fri Sat Time Sun Mon-Thurs Fri Sat 12:00 AM $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 12:00 AM $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 1:00AM $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 ' 2:00AM $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 1:00AM $1.10 $1.10 I $1.10 $1.10 ' . 2:00AM $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 -·--3:00AM $1.10 $1.10 S1.10 $1.10 ~ 3:00AM $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 ) 4:00AM $1.10 S1.10 S1.10 $1.10 4:00AM $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 -+ ; ·-_., -5:00AM S1.10 $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 5:00AM $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 6:00AM $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 6:00AM $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 7:00AM $1.10 $1.10 S1.10 $1.10 8:00AM $1.10 $1.10 S1.10 $1.10 7:00AM $1.10 I $1.70 $1.70 I $1.10 8:00AM $1.10 I $1.70 $1.70 $1.70 9:00AM $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 $1.70 ~ 9:00AM $1.10 I $1.70 I $1.10 $1.70 10:00AM $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 $1.70 10:00 AM $1.70 $1.70 $1.70 $2.50 11:00 AM $1.70 $1.10 $1.10 $1.70 12:00 PM $1.70 $1.10 $1.70 $1.70 11:00 AM $1.70 I $1.70 $1.70 $2.50 12:00 PM $2.50 $1.70 $2.50 $2.50 1:00PM $1.70 $1.70 $2.50 $1.70 1:00PM $2.50 $2.50 $3.35 $2.50 2:00PM $1.70 $2.50 $3.35 $2.50 2:00PM $2.50 $4.20 $4.90 $3.35 3:00PM $1.70 $3.35 $4.20 $2.50 3:00PM $2.50 $5.55 $7.15 $3.35 4:00PM $1.70 $4.20 $7.15 $2.50 5:00PM 51.70 $4.20 $8.10 $2.50 4:00PM $2.50 $7.15 I $7.15 I $4.20 5:00PM $2.50 $7.15 $8.10 $4.20 6:00PM $1.70 $4.20 S8.70 $2.50 6:00PM $2.50 $7.15 $8.10 $3.35 7:00PM $1.70 S3.35 $3.35 $1.70 7:00PM $2.50 $5.55 $5.55 $2.50 8:00PM $1.70 $1.70 $3.35 $1.70 9:00PM $1.70 $1.10 $2.50 $1.70 -10:00 PM $1.10 $1.10 $1.70 $1.70 8:00PM $2.50 $2.50 $4.90 I $1.70 9:00PM -$1.7o 1 $1.70 $3.35 $1.70 10:00 PM $1.10 $1.10 $1.70 $1.70 11 :00 PM $1.10 $1.10 S1.10 -$1.10 $1.10 ,. $1.10 ~ $1.10 r $1.70 11:00PM - Hourly Toll Rate $8.00 '' ' $7.00 $6.00 I \ I \, $5.00 " • cz: $4.00 ~ $3.00 $2.00 $1.00 J' \ .v \ ! r'-~ 1\.. I / '\ ,\ i / I / v/ v \' ' I I ' . '' ~ v ' " bJ /. I " $0.00 ~ ?i ?i ?i ~ ~ ~ ~ <( CL CL CL CL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9. 0 0 0 9. ~ ~ 0 N m U:i ai N m ID ai .-; .-; -Toll Rate -J o/From 1-15 ~ Enhanced Toll Rate -To/From 1-15 Annual Toll Transactions ----Base ----Enhanced 25,ooo,an ~----~------~------~----~------~--~--~----~------~----~------~ 2o,ooo,an +-----~------~------+-----~------~------r------+------+------1~~-=~ 15,000,an I I I I ._, I ~ =-==~ I I I 10,000,an +------4-=~~~------+------+------1-------r------+------+-----~------~ 5,000,000 +--#--~---+-----+---+-----+---+-----+---+-----+------! 0 +------4-------r------+------+------,_------r------+------+------+------~ 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 2046 2051 2056 2061 Annual Revenue (2008 $'s) -Base -Enhanced $120,000,000 $100,000,000 $80,000,000 $60,000,000 $40,000,000 $20,000,000 $0 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 2046 2051 2056 2061 Annual Revenue (2008 $'s) -Base -Enhanced -Max $160,000,000 $140,000,000 $120,000,000 $100,000,000 $80,000,000 $60,000,000 $40,000,000 $20,000,000 so 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 2046 2051 2056 2061 ' ' 5/17/2012 1 Michael Blomquist, PE Toll Program Director 5/17/2012 2 AGENDA ITEM 10 Agenda Item 10 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 21, 2012 TO: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee FROM: Shirley Medina, Planning and Programming Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Project Development Director SUBJECT: State Route 91 High Occupancy Vehicle Project Cooperative Agreement Amendment STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Reprogram federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds from construction savings to cover the increase in Caltrans’ expenditures for the plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E) related to the State Route 91 high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes project; 2) Approve Agreement No. 06-31-062-02, Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. 06-31-062-00, to increase funding by the amount of $1,225,534 for the PS&E phase for the SR-91 HOV lanes project; 3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The SR-91 HOV lanes project was awarded by Caltrans on March 8, 2012. The construction phase was funded with Proposition 1B Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA) and federal CMAQ funds. As a result of the low bid, construction savings resulted in the amount of $37,007,000 in CMIA savings and $9,352,000 in CMAQ savings. Project cost savings are returned back to the respective funding pots with the California Transportation Commission responsible for reprogramming CMIA savings, and the Commission responsible for reprogramming CMAQ savings. Caltrans recently finalized its expenditures for the PS&E phase, which Commission staff reviewed. Final expenditures for PS&E resulted in an increase to the current cooperative agreement in an amount of $1,225,534. The design cost increase was due to modifications to right of way, utility, and railroad requirements, and operational and safety improvements. 42 Agenda Item 10 Staff recommends approval of the cost increase and proposes to reprogram $1,084,965 CMAQ savings from the construction phase to cover the increase in the PS&E phase, and $140,569 of Measure A funds required to match federal CMAQ funds. The CMAQ funds are directly reimbursed to Caltrans; therefore, the financial impact to the Commission’s budget will only reflect the Measure A match. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2012/13 Amount: $ 140,569 Source of Funds: 1989 Measure A Western County Highway Budget Adjustment: No GL/Project Accounting No.: 003005 81102 222 31 81102 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 05/10/12 43 AGENDA ITEM 11 Agenda Item 11 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 21, 2012 TO: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee FROM: Patricia Castillo, Capital Projects Manager THROUGH: Marlin Feenstra, Project Delivery Director SUBJECT: State Route 60 Truck Climbing/Descending Lane Project – Project Approval and Environmental Document STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Agree to sponsor the project approval and environmental document (PA&ED) phase of the State Route 60 truck climbing lane project; 2) Approve the programming of Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) funds in the amount of $3,006,000 for PA&ED; 3) Approve Cooperative Agreement No. 12-31-092-00 with Caltrans for the PA&ED phase for the SR-60 truck climbing lane project; 4) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; 5) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute any future non-funding related amendments; and 6) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The 2009 Measure A passed by voters in 2002 included a project to add a truck climbing lane on SR-60 in the Badlands area east of Moreno Valley. The 10-Year Western Riverside County Highway Delivery Plan approved by the Commission in December 2006 did not include the SR-60 Truck Climbing Lane but did include the truck climbing lane project on Interstate 10 from the San Bernardino County line to SR-60. However, at the Commission workshop in 2011, staff presented traffic volume and accident rate comparisons between the two projects, demonstrating that there is a more urgent need for improvements to SR-60 in the Badlands area than to I-10. In July 2011, Caltrans completed a project study report (PSR) that analyzes three alternatives for improving SR-60 in the Badlands area. The three alternatives and cost estimate ranges are: 44 Agenda Item 11 1) Eastbound truck climbing lane only, plus standard shoulders at a cost of $40-42 million; 2) Truck climbing and descending lane plus standard shoulders at a cost of $74-82 million; or 3) Shoulder widening only, both directions at a cost of $49-57 million. At the February 2012 workshop, the Commission gave its approval to substituting the SR-60 truck climbing lane project for the I-10 truck climbing lane project in the 10-year delivery plan. Currently, Caltrans District 8 is working on a proposed safety project within the same limits of the SR-60 in the Badlands project area that will widen the shoulders in the westbound direction to standard widths (5-feet inside shoulder and 10-feet outside shoulder), at a cost up to $27 million (construction cost). The project also has up to $2 Million available for the PA&ED phase. This project is scheduled to be under construction in early 2016. Given that the scope of the safety project is one of the elements of Alternative #3 as described in the PSR of the SR-60 truck climbing lane project, and the timing of the construction of this proposed safety project overlaps with the timing of the Commission’s SR-60 project, and to reduce the impact to the travelling public, staff and Caltrans propose to combine the SR-60 truck climbing lane project with the safety project. Combining the projects would result in Caltrans being responsible for $27 million of construction costs, and the Commission responsible for the other $47-55 million of construction costs. It is anticipated that CMAQ funds would be used for all phases of this project. In view of the fact that one of the programming constraints of the safety project is that the project be ready to list by June 2016, the combined project also needs to be ready to list by June 2016. Reviews of the proposed schedule indicate that meeting this date is feasible. Staff is proposing that the Commission sponsor the combined project with Caltrans District 8 taking the lead on the PA&ED phase. Caltrans’ estimate to complete the PA&ED phase is $5,006,000, based on the following assumptions: • The scope of the project is based on the approved PSR, alternative 2. • The overhead rate, currently 32.52 percent, is used; this is subject to change each year based on audits of the Department’s overhead costs. This has not changed significantly in recent years. • The anticipated environmental document is an initial study-environmental assessment leading to a negative declaration/finding of no significant impact. 45 Agenda Item 11 Caltrans will contribute the full $2 million available for the safety project, and the Commission will be responsible for the balance of the combined project. Staff recommends that the Commission program $3,006,000 in CMAQ funds. This has no impact on the Commission budget because the federal funds proposed for the project would flow directly to Caltrans. Attachment: Draft Cooperative agreement with Caltrans 46 08-RIV-60-22.2/26.5 EA: 0N690 District Agreement 08-1543 Project Number 0800000537 PACT Version 10.1.2011_02_18 Draft: 5/10/12 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT This agreement, effective on ______________________________, is between the State of California, acting through its Department of Transportation, referred to as CALTRANS, and: Riverside County Transportation Commission, a public entity referred to as RCTC. For the purpose of this agreement, the term PARTNERS collectively refers to CALTRANS and RCTC (all signatory parties to this agreement). The term PARTNER refers to any one of those signatory parties individually. RECITALS 1. California Streets and Highways Code sections 114 and 130 authorize PARTNERS to enter into a cooperative agreement for performance of work within the State Highway System (SHS) right of way. 2. For the purpose of this agreement, addition of eastbound truck climbing lane and westbound truck descending lane, and upgrading existing inside and outside shoulder to current standards on State Route 60 (SR-60) between Gilman Springs Road (PM 22.2) and Jack Rabbit Trail (PM 26.5) will be referred to as PROJECT. All responsibilities assigned in this agreement to complete the Project Approval and Environmental Document will be referred to as OBLIGATIONS. This agreement outlines the terms and conditions of cooperation between PARTNERS to complete OBLIGATION for PROJECT. 3. Prior to this agreement, CALTRANS developed the Project Initiation Document. 4. The estimated date for OBLIGATION COMPLETION is December 31, 2025. 5. In this agreement capitalized words represent defined terms and acronyms. The Definitions section contains a complete definition for each capitalized term. 6. From this point forward, PARTNERS define in this agreement the terms and conditions under which they will accomplish OBLIGATIONS. RESPONSIBILITIES 7. RCTC is SPONSOR for 100% of PROJECT. 47 District Agreement 08-1543 PACT Version 10.1.2011_02_18 2 of 22 8. RCTC may provide IQA for the portions of WORK outside existing and proposed SHS right of way. 9. CALTRANS and RCTC will each be a FUNDING PARTNER for this agreement. Their funding commitments are defined in the FUNDING SUMMARY. 10. CALTRANS is the CEQA lead agency for PROJECT. 11. CALTRANS is the NEPA lead agency for PROJECT. 12. CALTRANS is IMPLEMENTING AGENCY for PA&ED. SCOPE Scope: General 13. PARTNERS will perform all OBLIGATIONS in accordance with federal and California laws, regulations, and standards; FHWA STANDARDS; and CALTRANS STANDARDS. 14. IMPLEMENTING AGENCY for a PROJECT COMPONENT will provide a Quality Management Plan (QMP) for that component as part of the PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN. 15. Any PARTNER may, at its own expense, have representatives observe any OBLIGATIONS performed by another PARTNER. Observation does not constitute authority over those OBLIGATIONS. 16. Each PARTNER will ensure that all of its personnel participating in OBLIGATIONS are appropriately qualified, and if necessary, licensed to perform the tasks assigned to them. 17. PARTNERS will invite each other to participate in the selection and retention of any consultants who participate in OBLIGATIONS. 18. If WORK is done under contract (not completed by a PARTNER’s own employees) and is governed by the California Labor Code’s definition of “public works” (section 1720(a)(a)), that PARTNER will conform to sections 1720 – 1815 of the California Labor Code and all applicable regulations and coverage determinations issued by the Director of Industrial Relations. 19. IMPLEMENTING AGENCY for each PROJECT COMPONENT included in this agreement will be available to help resolve problems generated by that component for the entire duration of PROJECT. 48 District Agreement 08-1543 PACT Version 10.1.2011_02_18 3 of 22 20. CALTRANS will issue, upon proper application, the encroachment permits required for WORK within SHS right of way. Contractors and/or agents, and utility owners will not perform WORK without an encroachment permit issued in their name. 21. If any PARTNER discovers unanticipated cultural, archaeological, paleontological, or other protected resources during WORK, all WORK in that area will stop and that PARTNER will notify all PARTNERS within 24 hours of discovery. WORK may only resume after a qualified professional has evaluated the nature and significance of the discovery and a plan is approved for its removal or protection. 22. PARTNERS will hold all administrative drafts and administrative final reports, studies, materials, and documentation relied upon, produced, created, or utilized for PROJECT in confidence to the extent permitted by law. Where applicable, the provisions of California Government Code section 6254.5(e) will govern the disclosure of such documents in the event that PARTNERS share said documents with each other. PARTNERS will not distribute, release, or share said documents with anyone other than employees, agents, and consultants who require access to complete PROJECT without the written consent of the PARTNER authorized to release them, unless required or authorized to do so by law. 23. If any PARTNER receives a public records request, pertaining to OBLIGATIONS, that PARTNER will notify PARTNERS within five (5) working days of receipt and make PARTNERS aware of any disclosed public records. PARTNERS will consult with each other prior to the release of any public documents related to the PROJECT. 24. If HM-1 or HM-2 is found during a PROJECT COMPONENT, IMPLEMENTING AGENCY for that PROJECT COMPONENT will immediately notify PARTNERS. 25. CALTRANS, independent of PROJECT, is responsible for any HM-1 found within the existing SHS right of way. CALTRANS will undertake or cause to be undertaken HM MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES related to HM-1 with minimum impact to PROJECT schedule. 26. If HM-1 is found within PROJECT limits and outside the existing SHS right of way, responsibility for such HM-1 rests with the owner(s) of the parcel(s) on which the HM-1 is found. RCTC, in concert with the local agency having land use jurisdiction over the parcel(s), will ensure that HM MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES related to HM-1are undertaken with minimum impact to PROJECT schedule.) 27. If HM-2 is found within PROJECT limits, the public agency responsible for the advertisement, award, and administration (AAA) of the PROJECT construction contract will be responsible for HM MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES related to HM-2. 49 District Agreement 08-1543 PACT Version 10.1.2011_02_18 4 of 22 28. CALTRANS’ acquisition or acceptance of title to any property on which any HM-1 or HM-2 is found will proceed in accordance with CALTRANS’ policy on such acquisition. 29. PARTNERS will comply with all of the commitments and conditions set forth in the environmental documentation, environmental permits, approvals, and applicable agreements as those commitments and conditions apply to each PARTNER’s responsibilities in this agreement. 30. IMPLEMENTING AGENCY for each PROJECT COMPONENT will furnish PARTNERS with written quarterly progress reports during the implementation of OBLIGATIONS in that component. 31. Upon OBLIGATION COMPLETION, ownership or title to all materials and equipment constructed or installed for the operations and/or maintenance of the SHS within SHS right of way as part of WORK become the property of CALTRANS. CALTRANS will not accept ownership or title to any materials or equipment constructed or installed outside SHS right of way. 32. IMPLEMENTING AGENCY for a PROJECT COMPONENT will accept, reject, compromise, settle, or litigate claims of any non-agreement parties hired to do WORK in that component. 33. PARTNERS will confer on any claim that may affect OBLIGATIONS or PARTNERS’ liability or responsibility under this agreement in order to retain resolution possibilities for potential future claims. No PARTNER will prejudice the rights of another PARTNER until after PARTNERS confer on claim. 34. PARTNERS will maintain, and will ensure that any party hired by PARTNERS to participate in OBLIGATIONS will maintain, a financial management system that conforms to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), and that can properly accumulate and segregate incurred PROJECT costs, and provide billing and payment support. 35. PARTNERS will comply with the appropriate federal cost principles and administrative requirements outlined in the Applicable Cost Principles and Administrative Requirements table below. These principles and requirements apply to all funding types included in this agreement. 36. PARTNERS will ensure that any party hired to participate in OBLIGATIONS will comply with the appropriate federal cost principles and administrative requirements outlined in the Applicable Cost Principles and Administrative Requirements table below. Applicable Cost Principles and Administration Requirements 50 District Agreement 08-1543 PACT Version 10.1.2011_02_18 5 of 22 The federal cost principles and administrative requirements associated with each organization type apply to that organization. Organization Type Cost Principles Administrative Requirements Federal Governments 2 CFR Part 225 OMB A-102 State and Local Government 2 CFR, Part 225 49 CFR, Part 18 Educational Institutions 2 CFR, Part 220 2 CFR, Part 215 Non-Profit Organizations 2 CFR, Part 230 2 CFR, Part 215 For Profit Organizations 48 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 31 49 CFR, Part 18 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) OMB (Office of Management and Budget) Related URLs: • Various OMB Circular: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants_circulars • Code of Federal Regulations: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/CFR 37. PARTNERS will maintain and make available to each other all OBLIGATIONS-related documents, including financial data, during the term of this agreement. 38. PARTNERS will retain all OBLIGATIONS-related records for three (3) years after the final voucher. 39. PARTNERS have the right to audit each other in accordance with generally accepted governmental audit standards. CALTRANS, the state auditor, FHWA, and RCTC will have access to all OBLIGATIONS-related records of each PARTNER, and any party hired by a PARTNER to participate in OBLIGATIONS, for audit, examination, excerpt, or transcription. The examination of any records will take place in the offices and locations where said records are generated and/or stored and will be accomplished during reasonable hours of operation. The auditing PARTNER will be permitted to make copies of any OBLIGATIONS-related records needed for the audit. The audited PARTNER will review the draft audit, findings, and recommendations, and provide written comments within 30 calendar days of receipt. Upon completion of the final audit, PARTNERS have 30 days to refund or invoice as necessary in order to satisfy the obligation of the audit. Any audit dispute not resolved by PARTNERS is subject to dispute resolution. Any costs arising out of the dispute resolution process will be paid within 30 calendar days of the final audit or dispute resolution findings. PARTNERS will undergo an annual audit in accordance with the Single Audit Act of OMB Circular A-133. 51 District Agreement 08-1543 PACT Version 10.1.2011_02_18 6 of 22 41. Any PARTNER that hires another party to participate in OBLIGATIONS will conduct a pre-award audit of that party in accordance with the Local Assistance Procedures Manual. 42. PARTNERS will not incur costs beyond the funding commitments in this agreement. If IMPLEMENTING AGENCY anticipates that funding for WORK will be insufficient to complete WORK, IMPLEMENTING AGENCY will promptly notify SPONSOR. IMPLEMENTING AGENCY has no obligation to perform WORK if funds to perform WORK are unavailable. 43. If WORK stops for any reason, IMPLEMENTING AGENCY will place all facilities impacted by WORK in a safe and operable condition acceptable to CALTRANS. 44. If WORK stops for any reason, each PARTNER will continue to implement all of its applicable commitments and conditions included in the PROJECT environmental documentation, permits, agreements, or approvals that are in effect at the time that WORK stops, as they apply to each PARTNER’s responsibilities in this agreement, in order to keep PROJECT in environmental compliance until WORK resumes. 45. Each PARTNER accepts responsibility to complete the activities that it selected on the SCOPE SUMMARY. Activities marked with “N/A” on the SCOPE SUMMARY are not included in the scope of this agreement. Scope: Environmental Permits, Approvals and Agreements 46. Each PARTNER identified in the Environmental Permits table below accepts the responsibility to complete the assigned activities. Environmental Permits Permit Coordinate Prepare Obtain Implement Renew Amend 404 USACOE CALTRANS CALTRANS CALTRANS CALTRANS CALTRANS CALTRANS 401 RWQCB CALTRANS CALTRANS CALTRANS CALTRANS CALTRANS CALTRANS NPDES SWRCB CALTRANS CALTRANS CALTRANS CALTRANS CALTRANS CALTRANS FESA Section 7 USFWS CALTRANS CALTRANS CALTRANS CALTRANS CALTRANS CALTRANS FESA Section 10 USFWS CALTRANS CALTRANS CALTRANS CALTRANS CALTRANS CALTRANS 1602 DFG CALTRANS CALTRANS CALTRANS CALTRANS CALTRANS CALTRANS 52 District Agreement 08-1543 PACT Version 10.1.2011_02_18 7 of 22 Scope: Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA&ED) 47. CALTRANS is the CEQA lead agency for PROJECT. CALTRANS will determine the type of environmental documentation required and will cause that documentation to be prepared. 48. Any PARTNER involved in the preparation of CEQA environmental documentation will follow the CALTRANS STANDARDS that apply to the CEQA process including, but not limited to, the guidance provided in the Standard Environmental Reference available at www.dot.ca.gov/ser. 49. Pursuant to SAFETEA-LU Section 6004 and/or 6005, CALTRANS is the NEPA lead agency for PROJECT. CALTRANS will assume responsibility for NEPA compliance and will prepare any needed NEPA environmental documentation or will cause that documentation to be prepared. 50. Any PARTNER involved in the preparation of NEPA environmental documentation will follow FHWA STANDARDS that apply to the NEPA process including, but not limited to, the guidance provided in the FHWA Environmental Guidebook available at www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/index.htm. 51. CALTRANS will prepare the appropriate CEQA environmental documentation to meet CEQA requirements. 52. CALTRANS will prepare the appropriate NEPA environmental documentation to meet NEPA requirements. 53. Any PARTNER preparing any portion of the CEQA environmental documentation, including any studies and reports, will submit that portion of the documentation to the CEQA lead agency for review, comment, and approval at appropriate stages of development prior to public availability. 54. Any PARTNER preparing any portion of the NEPA environmental documentation (including, but not limited to, studies, reports, public notices, and public meeting materials, determinations, administrative drafts, and final environmental documents) will submit that portion of the documentation to CALTRANS for CALTRANS’ review, comment, and approval prior to public availability. 55. CALTRANS will prepare, publicize, and circulate all CEQA-related public notices and will submit said notices to the CEQA lead agency for review, comment, and approval prior to publication and circulation. 56. CALTRANS will prepare, publicize, and circulate all NEPA-related public notices. CALTRANS will work with the appropriate federal agency to publish notices in the Federal Register. 53 District Agreement 08-1543 PACT Version 10.1.2011_02_18 8 of 22 57. The CEQA lead agency will attend all CEQA-related public meetings. 58. CALTRANS will plan, schedule, prepare materials for, and host all CEQA-related public meetings and will submit all materials to the CEQA lead agency for review, comment, and approval at least 10 working days prior to the public meeting date. 59. The NEPA lead agency will attend all NEPA-related public meetings. 60. CALTRANS will plan, schedule, prepare materials for, and host all NEPA-related public meetings. 61. If a PARTNER who is not the CEQA or NEPA lead agency holds a public meeting about PROJECT, that PARTNER must clearly state its role in PROJECT and the identity of the CEQA and NEPA lead agencies on all meeting publications. All meeting publications must also inform the attendees that public comments collected at the meetings are not part of the CEQA or NEPA public review process. That PARTNER will submit all meeting advertisements, agendas, exhibits, handouts, and materials to the appropriate lead agency for review, comment, and approval at least 10 working days prior to publication or use. If that PARTNER makes any changes to the materials, it will allow the appropriate lead agency to review, comment on, and approve those changes at least three (3) working days prior to the public meeting date. The CEQA lead agency maintains final editorial control with respect to text or graphics that could lead to public confusion over CEQA-related roles and responsibilities. The NEPA lead agency has final approval authority with respect to text or graphics that could lead to public confusion over NEPA-related roles and responsibilities. 62. The PARTNER preparing the environmental documentation, including the studies and reports, will ensure that qualified personnel remain available to help resolve environmental issues and perform any necessary work to ensure that PROJECT remains in environmental compliance. COST Cost: General 63. The cost of any awards, judgments, or settlements generated by OBLIGATIONS is an OBLIGATIONS COST. 64. CALTRANS, independent of PROJECT, will pay all costs for HM MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES related to HM-1 found within the existing SHS right of way. 54 District Agreement 08-1543 PACT Version 10.1.2011_02_18 9 of 22 65. Independent of PROJECT, all costs for HM MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES related to HM-1 found within PROJECT limits and outside the existing SHS right of way will be the responsibility of the owner(s) of the parcel(s) where the HM-1 is located. 66. HM MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES costs related to HM-2 are CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT and CONSTRUCTION CAPITAL costs. 67. The cost to comply with and implement the commitments set forth in the environmental documentation is an OBLIGATIONS COST. 68. The cost to ensure that PROJECT remains in environmental compliance is an OBLIGATIONS COST. 69. The cost of any legal challenges to the CEQA or NEPA environmental process or documentation is an OBLIGATIONS COST. 70. Independent of OBLIGATIONS COST, CALTRANS will fund the cost of its own IQA for WORK done within existing or proposed future SHS right of way. 71. Independent of OBLIGATIONS COST, RCTC will fund the cost of its own IQA for WORK done outside existing or proposed future SHS right of way. 72. CALTRANS will provide encroachment permits to PARTNERS, their contractors, consultants and agents, at no cost. 73. Fines, interest, or penalties levied against a PARTNER will be paid, independent of OBLIGATIONS COST, by the PARTNER whose actions or lack of action caused the levy. 74. Travel, per diem, and third-party contract reimbursements are an OBLIGATIONS COST only after those hired by PARTNERS to participate in OBLIGATIONS incur and pay those costs. Payments for travel and per diem will not exceed the rates paid rank and file state employees under current California Department of Personnel Administration (DPA) rules current at the effective date of this agreement. If RCTC invoices for rates in excess of DPA rates, RCTC will fund the cost difference and reimburse CALTRANS for any overpayment. 55 District Agreement 08-1543 PACT Version 10.1.2011_02_18 10 of 22 75. The cost of any engineering support performed by CALTRANS includes all direct and applicable indirect costs. CALTRANS calculates indirect costs based solely on the type of funds used to pay support costs. State and federal funds are subject to the current Program Functional Rate. Local funds are subject to the current Program Functional Rate and the current Administration Rate. The Program Functional Rate and the Administration Rate are adjusted periodically. 76. If CALTRANS reimburses RCTC for any costs later determined to be unallowable, RCTC will reimburse those funds. 77. The cost to place PROJECT right of way in a safe and operable condition and meet all environmental commitments is an OBLIGATIONS cost. 78. Because IMPLEMENTING AGENCY is responsible for managing the scope, cost, and schedule of a project component, if there are insufficient funds available in this agreement to place the right of way in a safe and operable condition, the appropriate IMPLEMENTING AGENCY accepts responsibility to fund these activities until such time as PARTNERS amend this agreement. That IMPLEMENTING AGENCY may request reimbursement for these costs during the amendment process. 79. If there are insufficient funds in this agreement to implement applicable commitments and conditions included in the PROJECT environmental documentation, permits, agreements, and/or approvals that are in effect at a time that WORK stops, each PARTNER implementing commitments or conditions accepts responsibility to fund these activities, as they apply to each PARTNER’s responsibilities, until such time as PARTNERS amend this agreement. Each PARTNER may request reimbursement for these costs during the amendment process. 80. CALTRANS will administer all federal subvention funds identified on the FUNDING SUMMARY. Cost: Environmental Permits, Approvals and Agreements 81. The cost of coordinating, obtaining, complying with, implementing, and if necessary renewing and amending resource agency permits, agreements, and/or approvals is an OBLIGATIONS COST. Cost: Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA&ED) 56 District Agreement 08-1543 PACT Version 10.1.2011_02_18 11 of 22 82. The cost to prepare, publicize, and circulate all CEQA and NEPA-related public notices is an OBLIGATIONS COST. 83. The cost to plan, schedule, prepare, materials for, and host all CEQA and NEPA-related public hearings is an OBLIGATIONS COST. SCHEDULE 84. PARTNERS will manage the schedule for OBLIGATIONS through the work plan included in the PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN. GENERAL CONDITIONS 85. PARTNERS understand that this agreement is in accordance with and governed by the Constitution and laws of the State of California. This agreement will be enforceable in the State of California. Any PARTNER initiating legal action arising from this agreement will file and maintain that legal action in the Superior Court of the county in which the CALTRANS district office that is signatory to this agreement resides, or in the Superior Court of the county in which PROJECT is physically located. 86. All OBLIGATIONS of CALTRANS under the terms of this agreement are subject to the appropriation of resources by the Legislature, the State Budget Act authority, and the allocation of funds by the California Transportation Commission. 87. Any PARTNER performing IQA does so for its own benefit. No one can assign liability to that PARTNER due to its IQA activities. 88. Neither RCTC nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any injury, damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by CALTRANS and/or its agents under or in connection with any work, authority, or jurisdiction conferred upon CALTRANS under this agreement. It is understood and agreed that CALTRANS will fully defend, indemnify, and save harmless RCTC and all of its officers and employees from all claims, suits, or actions of every name, kind, and description brought forth under, but not limited to, tortious, contractual, inverse condemnation, or other theories or assertions of liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by CALTRANS and/or its agents under this agreement. 57 District Agreement 08-1543 PACT Version 10.1.2011_02_18 12 of 22 89. Neither CALTRANS nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any injury, damage, or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by RCTC and/or its agents under or in connection with any work, authority, or jurisdiction conferred upon RCTC under this agreement. It is understood and agreed that RCTC will fully defend, indemnify, and save harmless CALTRANS and all of its officers and employees from all claims, suits, or actions of every name, kind, and description brought forth under, but not limited to, tortious, contractual, inverse condemnation, or other theories or assertions of liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by RCTC and/or its agents under this agreement. 90. PARTNERS do not intend this agreement to create a third party beneficiary or define duties, obligations, or rights in parties not signatory to this agreement. PARTNERS do not intend this agreement to affect their legal liability by imposing any standard of care for fulfilling OBLIGATIONS different from the standards imposed by law. 91. PARTNERS will not assign or attempt to assign OBLIGATIONS to parties not signatory to this agreement. 92. PARTNERS will not interpret any ambiguity contained in this agreement against each other. PARTNERS waive the provisions of California Civil Code section 1654. 93. A waiver of a PARTNER’s performance under this agreement will not constitute a continuous waiver of any other provision. An amendment made to any article or section of this agreement does not constitute an amendment to or negate all other articles or sections of this agreement. 94. A delay or omission to exercise a right or power due to a default does not negate the use of that right or power in the future when deemed necessary. 95. If any PARTNER defaults in its OBLIGATIONS, a non-defaulting PARTNER will request in writing that the default be remedied within 30 calendar days. If the defaulting PARTNER fails to do so, the non-defaulting PARTNER may initiate dispute resolution. 96. PARTNERS will first attempt to resolve agreement disputes at the PROJECT team level. If they cannot resolve the dispute themselves, the CALTRANS district director and the executive officer of RCTC will attempt to negotiate a resolution. If PARTNERS do not reach a resolution, PARTNERS’ legal counsel will initiate mediation. PARTNERS agree to participate in mediation in good faith and will share equally in its costs. Neither the dispute nor the mediation process relieves PARTNERS from full and timely performance of OBLIGATIONS in accordance with the terms of this agreement. However, if any PARTNER stops fulfilling OBLIGATIONS, any other PARTNER may seek equitable relief to ensure that OBLIGATIONS continue. 58 District Agreement 08-1543 PACT Version 10.1.2011_02_18 13 of 22 Except for equitable relief, no PARTNER may file a civil complaint until after mediation, or 45 calendar days after filing the written mediation request, whichever occurs first. PARTNERS will file any civil complaints in the Superior Court of the county in which the CALTRANS district office signatory to this agreement resides. The prevailing PARTNER will be entitled to an award of all costs, fees, and expenses, including reasonable attorney fees as a result of litigating a dispute under this agreement or to enforce the provisions of this article including equitable relief. 97. PARTNERS maintain the ability to pursue alternative or additional dispute remedies if a previously selected remedy does not achieve resolution. 98. If any provisions in this agreement are deemed to be, or are in fact, illegal, inoperative, or unenforceable, those provisions do not render any or all other agreement provisions invalid, inoperative, or unenforceable, and PARTNERS will automatically sever those provisions from this agreement. 99. PARTNERS intend this agreement to be their final expression and supersede any oral understanding or writings pertaining to OBLIGATIONS. 100. If during performance of WORK additional activities or environmental documentation is necessary to keep PROJECT in environmental compliance, PARTNERS will amend this agreement to include completion of those additional tasks. 101. PARTNERS will execute a formal written amendment if there are any changes to OBLIGATIONS. 102. This agreement will terminate upon OBLIGATION COMPLETION or an amendment to terminate this agreement, whichever occurs first. However, all indemnification, document retention, audit, claims, environmental commitment, legal challenge, and ownership articles will remain in effect until terminated or modified in writing by mutual agreement. 103. The following documents are attached to, and made an express part of this agreement: SCOPE SUMMARY, FUNDING SUMMARY. DEFINITIONS CALTRANS – The California Department of Transportation CALTRANS STANDARDS – CALTRANS policies and procedures, including, but not limited to, the guidance provided in the Guide to Capital Project Delivery Workplan Standards (previously known as WBS Guide) available at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/projmgmt/guidance.htm. 59 District Agreement 08-1543 PACT Version 10.1.2011_02_18 14 of 22 CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) – The act (California Public Resources Code, sections 21000 et seq.) that requires state and local agencies to identify the significant environmental impacts of their actions and to avoid or mitigate those significant impacts, if feasible. CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) – The general and permanent rules published in the Federal Register by the executive departments and agencies of the federal government. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT CLOSURE STATEMENT – A document signed by PARTNERS that verifies the completion of all OBLIGATIONS included in this agreement and in all amendments to this agreement. COST – The responsibility for cost responsibilities in this agreement can take one of three assignments: • OBLIGATIONS COST – A cost associated with fulfilling OBLIGATIONS that will be funded as part of this agreement. The responsibility is defined by the funding commitments in this agreement. • PROJECT COST – A cost associated with PROJECT that can be funded outside of OBLIGATIONS. A PROJECT COST may not necessarily be part of this agreement. This responsibility is defined by the PARTNERS’ funding commitments at the time the cost is incurred. • PARTNER COST– A cost that is the responsibility of a specific PARTNER, independent of PROJECT. FHWA – Federal Highway Administration FHWA STANDARDS – FHWA regulations, policies and procedures, including, but not limited to, the guidance provided at www.fhwa.dot.gov/topics.htm. FUNDING PARTNER – A PARTNER that commits a defined dollar amount to fulfill OBLIGATIONS. Each FUNDING PARTNER accepts responsibility to provide the funds identified on the FUNDING SUMMARY under its name. FUNDING SUMMARY – The table that designates an agreement’s funding sources, types of funds, and the PROJECT COMPONENT in which the funds are to be spent. Funds listed on the FUNDING SUMMARY are “not-to-exceed” amounts for each FUNDING PARTNER. GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) – Uniform minimum standards and guidelines for financial accounting and reporting issued by the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board that serve to achieve some level of standardization. See http://www.fasab.gov/accepted.html. HM-1 – Hazardous material (including, but not limited to, hazardous waste) that may require removal and disposal pursuant to federal or state law whether it is disturbed by PROJECT or not. 60 District Agreement 08-1543 PACT Version 10.1.2011_02_18 15 of 22 HM-2 – Hazardous material (including, but not limited to, hazardous waste) that may require removal and disposal pursuant to federal or state law only if disturbed by PROJECT. HM MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES – Management activities related to either HM-1 or HM-2 including, without limitation, any necessary manifest requirements and disposal facility designations. IMPLEMENTING AGENCY – The PARTNER responsible for managing the scope, cost, and schedule of a PROJECT COMPONENT to ensure the completion of that component. IQA (Independent Quality Assurance) – Ensuring that IMPLEMENTING AGENCY’s quality assurance activities result in WORK being developed in accordance with the applicable standards and within an established Quality Management Plan (QMP). IQA does not include any work necessary to actually develop or deliver WORK or any validation by verifying or rechecking work performed by another partner. NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act of 1969) – The federal act that establishes a national policy for the environment and a process to disclose the adverse impacts of projects with a federal nexus. OBLIGATION COMPLETION – PARTNERS have fulfilled all OBLIGATIONS included in this agreement, and all amendments to this agreement, and have signed a COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT CLOSURE STATEMENT. OBLIGATIONS – All responsibilities included in this agreement. OBLIGATIONS COST – See COST. OMB (Office of Management and Budget) – The federal office that oversees preparation of the federal budget and supervises its administration in Executive Branch agencies. PA&ED (Project Approval and Environmental Document) – See PROJECT COMPONENT. PARTNER – Any individual signatory party to this agreement. PARTNERS – The term that collectively references all of the signatory agencies to this agreement. This term only describes the relationship between these agencies to work together to achieve a mutually beneficial goal. It is not used in the traditional legal sense in which one PARTNER’s individual actions legally bind the other partners. PROJECT – The undertaking to Adding eastbound truck climbing lane and westbound truck decending lane, and upgrading existing inside and outside shoulder to current standards on State Route 60 (SR-60) between Gilman Springs Road (PM 22.2) and Jack Rabbit Trail (PM 26.5) PROJECT COMPONENT – A distinct portion of the planning and project development process of a capital project as outlined in California Government Code, section 14529(b). 61 District Agreement 08-1543 PACT Version 10.1.2011_02_18 16 of 22 • PID (Project Initiation Document) – The activities required to deliver the project initiation document for PROJECT. • PA&ED (Project Approval and Environmental Document) – The activities required to deliver the project approval and environmental documentation for PROJECT. • PS&E (Plans, Specifications, and Estimate) – The activities required to deliver the plans, specifications, and estimate for PROJECT. • R/W (Right of Way) SUPPORT –The activities required to obtain all property interests for PROJECT. • R/W (Right of Way) CAPITAL – The funds for acquisition of property rights for PROJECT. • CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT – The activities required for the administration, acceptance, and final documentation of the construction contract for PROJECT. • CONSTRUCTION CAPITAL – The funds for the construction contract. PROJECT COST – See COST. PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN – A group of documents used to guide a project’s execution and control throughout that project’s lifecycle. QMP (Quality Management Plan) – An integral part of the Project Management Plan that describes IMPLEMENTING AGENCY’s quality policy and how it will be used. SAFETEA-LU – Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users SCOPE SUMMARY – The attachment in which each PARTNER designates its commitment to specific scope activities within each PROJECT COMPONENT as outlined by the Guide to Capital Project Delivery Workplan Standards (previously known as WBS Guide) available at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/projmgmt/guidance.htm. SHS (State Highway System) – All highways, right of way, and related facilities acquired, laid out, constructed, improved, or maintained as a state highway pursuant to constitutional or legislative authorization. SPONSOR – Any PARTNER that accepts the responsibility to establish scope of PROJECT and the obligation to secure financial resources to fund PROJECT. SPONSOR is responsible for adjusting the PROJECT scope to match committed funds or securing additional funds to fully fund the PROJECT scope. If a PROJECT has more than one SPONSOR, funding adjustments will be made by percentage (as outlined in Responsibilities). Scope adjustments must be developed through the project development process and must be approved by CALTRANS as the owner/operator of the SHS. WORK – All scope activities included in this agreement. CONTACT INFORMATION 62 District Agreement 08-1543 PACT Version 10.1.2011_02_18 17 of 22 The information provided below indicates the primary contact data for each PARTNER to this agreement. PARTNERS will notify each other in writing of any personnel or location changes. Contact information changes do not require an amendment to this agreement. The primary agreement contact person for CALTRANS is: Rahguram Radhakrishnan, Project Manager 464 West 4th Street, 6th Floor San Bernardino, California 92401-1400 Office Phone: (909) 383-6288 Email: raghuram.radhakrishnan@dot.ca.gov The primary agreement contact person for RCTC is: Patricia Castillo, Capital Projects Program Manager 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, California 92501 Office Phone: (951) 787-7141 Email: PCastillo@rctc.org 63 District Agreement 08-1543 PACT Version 10.20110217 18 of 22 SIGNATURES PARTNERS declare that: 1. Each PARTNER is an authorized legal entity under California state law. 2. Each PARTNER has the authority to enter into this agreement. 3. The people signing this agreement have the authority to do so on behalf of their public agencies. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION APPROVED By: Syed Raza Acting District 8 Director Date:____________________________ CERTIFIED AS TO FUNDS: By: Lisa Pacheco Budget Manager Date:_____________________________ RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION APPROVED By:______________________________ Anne Mayer Executive Director Date:____________________________ By:____________________________ Best, Best, and Krieger General Council Date:_____________________________ 64 08-RIV-60-22.2/26.5 EA: 0N690 District Agreement 08-1543 Project Number 0800000537 PACT Version 9.1 3.31.08 19 of 22 SCOPE SUMMARY 4 5 6 7 8 Description CALTRANS RCTC N/A 100 Project Management X 2 160 Perform Preliminary Engineering Studies and Draft Project Report X 05 Updated Project information X 10 Engineering Studies X 15 Draft Project Report X 20 Engineering and Land Net Surveys X 30 Environmental Study Request (ESR) X 40 NEPA Delegation X 45 Base Maps and Plan Sheets for Project Report and Environmental Studies X 2 165 Perform Environmental Studies and Prepare Draft Environmental Document X 05 Environmental Scoping of Alternatives Identified for Studies in Project Initiation Document X 10 General Environmental Studies X 65 Paleontology(PIR/PER/PMP) X 15 Biological Studies X 20 Cultural Resource Studies X 05 Archaeological Survey X 05 Area of Potential Effects/Study Area Maps X 10 Native American Consultation X 15 Records and Literature Search X 20 Field Survey X 25 Archaeological Survey Report X 99 Other Archaeological Survey Products X 10 Extended Phase I Archaeological Studies X 05 Native American Consultation X 10 Extended Phase I Proposal X 15 Extended Phase I Field Investigation X 20 Extended Phase I Materials Analysis X 25 Extended Phase I Report X 99 Other Phase I Archaeological Study Products X 15 Phase II Archaeological Studies X 05 Native American Consultation X 10 Phase II Proposal X 15 Phase II Field Investigation X 20 Phase II Materials Analysis X 25 Phase II Report X 65 District Agreement 08-1543 PACT Version 10.20110217 20 of 22 99 Other Phase II Archaeological Study Products X 20 Historical and Architectural Resource Studies X 05 Preliminary Area of Potential Effects/Study Area Maps for Architecture X 10 Historic Resources Evaluation Report - Archaeology X 15 Historic Resource Evaluation Report - Architecture (HRER) X 20 Bridge Evaluation X 99 Other Historical and Architectural Resource Study Products X 25 Cultural Resource Compliance Consultation Documents X 05 Final Area of Potential Effects/Study Area Maps X 10 PRC 5024.5 Consultation X 15 Historic Property Survey Report/Historic Resources Compliance Report X 20 Finding of Effect X 25 Archaeological Data Recovery Plan/Treatment Plan X 30 Memorandum of Agreement X 99 Other Cultural Resources Compliance Consultation Products X 25 Draft Environmental Document or Categorical Exemption/Exclusion X 10 Section 4(F) Evaluation X 20 Environmental Quality Control and Other Reviews X 25 Approval to Circulate Resolution X 30 Environmental Coordination X 99 Other Draft Environmental Document Products X 30 NEPA Delegation X 2 170 Permits, Agreements, and Route Adoptions during PA&ED component X 05 Required permits X 15 Railroad Agreements X 20 Freeway Agreements X 25 Agreement for Material Sites X 30 Executed Maintenance Agreement X 40 Route Adoptions X 45 MOU From Tribal Employment Rights Office (TERO) X 55 NEPA Delegation X 2 175 Circulate Draft Environmental Document and Select Preferred Project Alternative Identification X 05 DED Circulation X 10 Public Meeting X 10 Public Hearing X 15 Public Comment Responses and Correspondence X 20 Project Preferred Alternative X 25 NEPA Delegation X 2 180 Prepare and Approve Project Report and Final Environmental Document X 05 Final Project Report X 10 Final Environmental Document X 05 Approved Final Environmental Document X 05 Draft Final Environmental Document Review X 10 Revised Draft Final Environmental Document X 66 District Agreement 08-1543 PACT Version 10.20110217 21 of 22 15 Section 4(F) Evaluation X 20 Findings X 25 Statement of Overriding Considerations X 30 CEQA Certification X 40 Section 106 Consultation and MOA X 45 Section 7 Consultation X 50 Final Section 4(F) Statement X 55 Floodplain Only Practicable Alternative Finding X 60 Wetlands Only Practicable Alternative Finding X 65 Section 404 Compliance X 70 Mitigation Measures X 10 Public Distribution of Final Environmental Document and Respond To Comments X 15 Final Right of Way Relocation Impact Document X 99 Other Final Environmental Document Products X 15 Completed Environmental Document X 05 Record of Decision (NEPA) X 10 Notice of Determination (CEQA) X 20 Environmental Commitments Record X 99 Other Completed Environmental Document Products X 20 NEPA Delegation X 67 08-RIV-60-22.2/26.5 EA: 0N690 District Agreement 08-1543 Project Number 0800000537 PACT Version 9.1 3.31.08 22 of 22 FUNDING SUMMARY Funding Source Funding Partner Fund Type PA&ED Subtotal Support Subtotal Funds Type Toll Credits Match STATE CALTRANS SHOPP $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 FEDERAL RCTC Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) $3,006,000 $3,006,000 $3,006,000 344,788 Subtotals by Component $5,006,000 $5,006,000 $5,006,000 344,788 Funds utilization will be based on a percentage split of 40% CMAQ and 60%, up to a maximum of $2 Million for SHOPP funds. The SPONSOR is responsible for any additional funding needs. 68 AGENDA ITEM 12 Agenda Item 12 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 21, 2012 TO: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee FROM: Technical Advisory Committee Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Project Development Director SUBJECT: City of Corona Funding Request for Foothill Parkway TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve programming $7 million of Western County’s 2009 Measure A Regional Arterial (MARA) funds as local match to $7 million of Proposition 1B State-Local Partnership Program (SLPP) formula funds for the city of Corona’s (Corona) Foothill Parkway westerly extension project; 2) Submit the Foothill Parkway project nomination forms for SLPP funding of $7 million to the California Transportation Commission; 3) Approve Agreement No. 12-72-093-00 with Corona to program $7 million in MARA funds; 4) Approve reprogramming approximately $7 million of TUMF regional arterial funds from Foothill Parkway right of way phase to the construction phase; 5) Approve Agreement No. 06-72-540-03, Amendment No. 3 to Agreement No. 06-72-540-00, with Corona to reflect the reprogramming of right of way savings to construction; 6) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements; and 7) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Corona’s Foothill Parkway project is included in the Commission’s Western County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) regional arterial program. The project is concluding its right of way phase, and Corona is now requesting construction funding in the amount of $14 million. The TUMF regional arterial program identifies a total of $7.2 million available for the construction phase of this project. However, all available TUMF regional arterial funds have been fully programmed. 69 Agenda Item 12 Earlier this year, Corona staff notified Commission staff that the Foothill Parkway project would be ready for construction at the end of the calendar year. At the April 2012 Commission meeting, the Commission approved Foothill Parkway as a candidate project for SLPP formula funds. SLPP formula funds can only be used for construction and are required to be matched by county half-cent transportation sales tax revenues, or Measure A in Riverside County. Staff recommends funding the $14 million needed to complete the funding of Foothill Parkway with $7 million of SLPP formula funds matched with $7 million of MARA funds. The city of Corona’s local contribution, as required by the TUMF agreement, is $2.5 million, and approximately $7 million in savings from the right of way phase is recommended to be reprogrammed to construction. The right of way savings amount will be finalized upon the completion of right of way acquisition. The reprogramming of right of way savings to the construction phase and MARA funds would replace the TUMF regional arterial funds that were originally identified for the construction phase. MARA funds are part of the 2009 Measure A specifically identified for regional arterials such as those identified on the TUMF network. The Commission previously programmed $2 million of MARA funds. To date, MARA accumulated revenues available total approximately $20 million. The programming of MARA funds for Corona’s Foothill Parkway project is consistent with the Commission’s direction to review all available fund sources for Western County TUMF regional arterial projects previously approved by the Commission that are ready for construction. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes N/A Year: FY 2012/13 FY 2013/14 Amount: $2,500,000 $4,500,000 Source of Funds: 2009 Measure A Western County Regional Arterial Budget Adjustment: No N/A GL/Project Accounting No.: 665102 81301 266 72 81301 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 05/10/12 Attachment: City of Corona Request for Construction Funding – Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension Project 70 71 72 AGENDA ITEM 13 Agenda Item 13 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 21, 2012 TO: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee FROM: Sheldon Peterson, Rail Manager Robert Yates, Multimodal Services Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Proposed Metrolink Budget for Fiscal Year 2012/13 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Adopt the preliminary FY 2012/13 Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) operating and capital budget with anticipation of a 5 to 9 percent fare increase; 2) Approve the additional Inland Empire Orange County (IEOC) service with an additional peak period round trip and expanded year round weekend service; 3) Allocate the Commission’s funding commitment to the SCRRA in an amount not to exceed of $7,575,300 in Local Transportation Fund (LTF) funds for train operations and maintenance of way plus a contingency of $2,424,700 in LTF funds for new service options and $250,000 for capital projects to be funded by State Transit Assistance funds (STA); and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Metrolink is the brand name for the services operated by SCRRA. By virtue of the SCRRA joint powers agreement, the five member agencies that comprise Metrolink must formally commit to fund their proportionate shares of commuter rail operating and capital costs. Each member agency must approve the budget before adoption of a final budget by the SCRRA Board, no later than June 30, 2012. Service and funding levels are limited by the policy and budget constraints of the member agencies and are negotiated each year. 73 Agenda Item 13 FY 2011/12 Metrolink Review The following is a review of Metrolink’s FY 2011/12 activities: • Continued reorganization of staff including new chief financial officer, finance department staff, legal team, security department, and other changes; • Continued safety efforts to follow up on the Peer Safety Review recommendations; • Further developed the Positive Train Control (PTC) program with the progress being made by the vendor integrator contractor with target completion 2013; • Started successful Angels Trains/IEOC Friday night game service in April; • Expanded staffing and marketing initiatives with Wild at Work; and • Received further delivery and rollout into service of the new passenger rail cars. FY 2012/13 Looking Forward Looking ahead to FY 2012/13, Metrolink intends to: • Continue safety focus; • Add weekday peak period trains on the IEOC service and expanded year round weekend service; • Continue to push for expanded 91 Line service with two additional peak period round trip trains; • Implement the PTC program with target completion by 2013; and • Provide new leadership direction. Riverside County Service Impact Proposed for FY 2012/13 Three Metrolink commuter rail lines traverse Riverside County – the Riverside Line, the IEOC Line, and the 91 Line. Staff proposed and there is available funding for an additional weekday peak period round trip train on the IEOC line. In addition, there is a proposal to re institute the second year round IEOC weekend train that was cut back to just running in summer months a couple of years ago to budget restraints. The anticipated costs to the Commission for the new IEOC trains are estimated at $225,000 and are included as part of the contingency. Also there is an effort by staff to develop a service option to use the newly purchased Commission-owned rail cars to expand the 91 Line service with four additional peak service trains. This proposal has the potential to greatly improve service for all Riverside residents and compliment the major SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project expansion project. Additional coordination still needs to take place between the member agencies and Burlington Northern Santa Fe with the objective of starting this new service mid-year. While an estimate for such service on the 91 74 Agenda Item 13 Line is not yet available, staff has included an amount in the contingency for this source. Commission’s FY 2012/13 Operating Subsidy Obligation The proposed SCRRA request of the Commission is $7,898,500 for operations and maintenance of way, which represents a $753,800 increase or 10.55 percent over the FY 2011/12 SCRRA budget. This amount does not include the staff recommended 5 to 9 percent fare increase that is currently being discussed. Staff is projecting funding of $7,575,300 to coincide with a 7 percent fare increase. These amounts do not include the additional service that has been proposed. Therefore, staff recommends approving a budget of $10 million, which includes a contingency of $2,424,700 to include the full development of new service and allow flexibility to account for the unknown impacts of the fare increase. Once the fare increase and service plans are finalized, staff will fund the appropriate operating subsidy to SCRRA. As with past funding, the operating subsidy will be paid from LTF revenues allocated for rail operations. Operating Cost Overview The overall Metrolink FY 2012/13 operating budget is $194,019,900, which is $14.4 million or 8 percent greater than the FY 2011/12 budget. The following elements represent the various increases: • An increase in the operating contract expenses including a labor settlement, overhead and administrative costs, resulting in $3.2 million or a 7.3 percent line item budget increase over the previous year; • An increase in the cost and usage of diesel fuel resulting in a $4.7 million or 20.9 percent line item budget impact over the previous year; • A $1 million increase in equipment maintenance with added positions and cleaning expenses; • An increase in the cost of transfers to other operators of $1.5 million primarily due to contract payment changes with LA Metro; • An increase in the agency’s insurance program by $1.2 million more than the prior year; and • An increase in indirect administrative expenses of $2.2 million or 24.1 percent over the previous year budget. In addition, there is a $1.3 million or 213.9 percent increase in professional services. These expenses are related to changes in funding of retirement obligations and increased consulting services. Regarding many of these issues above and given the overall financial picture of Metrolink and the partner agencies, there are a number of concerns. First, over the past year through a number of audits, it has come to light that there are significant 75 Agenda Item 13 issues with SCRRA’s capital grants oversight, financial procedures, and financial information system. In addition, there are concerns with tracking of inventory that required almost half of the inventory to be written off as of June 30, 2011. While efforts are underway to correct these issues, the Commission requires sufficient information in order to continue diligent oversight regarding the use of Riverside County’s transportation funds. The oversight of the financial operations of SCRRA continues to be a significant concern. Capital Contribution The Commission’s new capital and capital renovation obligation for FY 2012/13 is projected at $1,590,749. This is the recommended amount based on available matching funding from other member agencies. SCRRA proposed a larger annual amount for next year that included $30 million for Tier 4 locomotives. This is a multi-year project that will cost over $100 million, and upgrades to Tier 4 locomotives would not be considered the usual rehabilitation of locomotives. Commission staff feels it should be a stand-alone project and funded independently of the established rehabilitation program. Commission staff is working on completing a $10 million FTA Section 5309 grant application that will be able to provide ongoing funding for the rehabilitation program and possibly, some of the locomotive program for the next several years. A majority of the FY 2012/13 obligation will be funded with FTA Section 5309 grant funds used for various projects including rehabilitation and renovation of rolling stock and track projects, ticket vending machine upgrades, and maintenance of way technology improvements. Some additional funding will be provided with STA funds as needed up to $250,000. As in past years, the federal funds will be claimed and received directly by SCRRA and will not pass through the Commission’s accounting records. Summary Financial Subsidy Impact to Commission The SCRRA-proposed Commission operating subsidy is $7,898,500, which represents 4 percent of the $194,019,900 Metrolink operating budget. Using LTF funds, a total operating subsidy of $10 million, comprised of $7,575,300 plus a contingency of $2,424,700 for new service, is included in the proposed FY 2012/13 budget being presented to the Commission in June 2012 for approval. The total capital rehabilitation project subsidy of $1,590,749 will be funded with $1,340,749 of FTA Section 5309 funds that will not pass through the Commission along with $250,000 in STA funds, which are included in the Commission’s proposed FY 2012/13 budget. 76 Agenda Item 13 Systemwide In FY 2012/13, Metrolink will celebrate its 20th year providing Metrolink commuter rail service in Southern California. Opening with three lines and 12 stations in October 1992, the SCRRA today operates over 512 route miles on seven lines, serving 55 stations in six counties. Average weekday ridership is projected to total over 44,000 one-way trips, which is a relatively flat projection based on current trends. In 2004, the Metrolink Board approved a 10-year fare restructuring program that began July 1, 2005, and changed the method for calculating fares to one based on the driving mileage between stations. The 10-year fare restructuring program included an underlying average annual fare increase of 3.5 percent. This program along with the potential fare increase will be discussed at a May 30, 2012 Special Metrolink Board meeting and public hearing. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2012/13 Amount: $10,250,000 Source of Funds: Operations – LTF Capital -STA Funds Budget Adjustment: No GLA No.: 254199 86101 103 25 86101 $10,000,000 254199 86102 103 25 86102 $250,000 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 05/14/12 Attachment: SCRRA FY 2012/13 Budget Operating Subsidy Allocation by County 77 78 5/21/2012 A IUPMOTT05Ciolf ---......... v..,w. WT_..M_ -w...dl""'i...or..<-,.u.. ~....,. -0.....'-1llM ... Slo-tS... -~-=== ....-lbc6cs.Ar. ==...a:~::: C02? M.h~ ..... -91U.a;...~ 1 lg System Ridership ~C--·!'! .. ~ 50 ,000 45 ,000 40,000 35,000 30 .000 25 .000 20 ,000 15,000 10,000 5 .000 0 Annu~l Jul Average Weekday System Ridership -r--~ == ~ ~ ~ ? F= 1-- .. .. - I Aug I Sep I Oct I Nov I Dec I Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun FY10/11 ~~8Si ?8 _, ·:w·· lg Riverside Line Ridership ~ -·~ 6 ,000 5 ,000 4,000 3,000 2 ,000 1,000 0 ....... - Jul Riverside Line Average Weekday Ridership ,...--;;;;; ..... .,.,:; -....:=::::::: _::::::. r--p: ~ ['... ~/ t-- -: I Aug I Sep I Oct I Nov I Dec I Jan I Feb I Mar I Apr I May I Jun FY 08109 FY09/10 FY10111 _, 1111.' _, 111(11 _, IPVIII _, Ill.! PI 5/21/2012 2 -,~ ~~.' IEOC Line Ridership IEOC Line Average Weekday Ridership 6,000 ,------------------------------, 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 FY 08/09 H?8NP -~~ 1111] _, --~-----1 -~'' ~ I Wh Jul I Aug I Sep I Oct I Nov I Dec I Jan Feb Mar Apr I May Jun g 91 Line Ridership ~--·~ 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 Annual : Jul F== ~ I Aug I 91 Line Average Weekday Ridership -- -~ ~ ~ :::::::= :::::::: ::---.. !--"' - Sep I Oct I Nov I Dec I Jan I Feb I Mar I Apr I May I Jun FY 10/11 FY08/09 FYOS/10 _, """ 5/21/2012 3 Category Change Ridership Result LA employment 10 percent increase 3 .4 percent increase Price of gasoline 10 percent increase 1.2 percent increase Average fares 10 percent increase 2.1 percent decrease Added service 10 percent increase 1.3 percent increase Weekend ridership 10 percent increase 0 .05 percent increase in weekday trips From Jan . 2010 Metrolink elasticity study using 2000-2009 data . -2012/13 Operating Budget ~" -·!! • Avg. daily ridership 44,000 • Operating budget $194 million {Up 8 percent, $14.4 million) • Potential 5 to 9 percent fare increase • Peak period and weekend service increases for IEOC • Future service increase for 91 Lines 5/21/2012 4 lg 2012/13 Operating Budget ~·~ -·!! • $14.4 million in net cost increases • $4.7 million -Fuel increase • $3.2 million -Train crew increase • $1 million -Train maintenance increase • $1.3 million -Connecting transfer increase • $1.2 million -Insurance • $2.2 million -Administrative expense • $1.3 million -Professional services • Some minor savings in other cost categories lg 2012/13 Service Expansion •~--·~ • New 5th Peak Period IEOC Train -Departs Riverside 7:00a.m. arrive laguna Niguel8:25 a.m. -Returns laguna Niguel 3:30p.m. arrive Riverside 5:00p.m. -Replaces off peak round-trip cut in 2010 with peak trains -First new peak train on the route since 1997 -Strong ridership potential, diverts traffic off 91 freeway • Weekend Service Increase for IEOC -Reintroduces 2nd year-round trip that was cut in back 2010 • Future Service Increase for 91 Lines -Proposal for two new peak round trips to aid 91 freeway projects 5/21/2012 5 -,~ $10 WU:K€ND PASS from Metrolink Weekends. Get Your Summer on TrW ·-.. ,._ --_._...us-. ............ ----"""' ~"':'- "'• ~-o.;...-. 1.58-t,)5-s.~ ..... 801-• .,. .. s.oa.- ···-9-..liS• ........ ~-J.n,.. 5 0l""' 811•• 'h<l2-~M ............. 'IItto H'l 5C.poo~ ....... IN I -hOM , .. ,,_ 1 17,_ UIO .. liOtOIII-lWill HI ... 5 d,.... ........ liO!IJ• S..UAM l~poo $,l0,_ -• Ul'>4 .. LIO.I§-Or... ],'>!l r-~3!>JIIII n-l,tqJ• l10.2'6-,....c..,... .,.,... $j 2.-n J....-..... 11111 ............ L910-ll~-WniCoooN L4r./P"' 1.4~ ..... :::::.::--t:!!: ~:~: =:~:= ~== ~.:: S.a..-I'W L •. ,. .. LI O.Y..-~ lf.Wf"'l l6'-"1""1 10.10 .. l hlQ.., S.."'-"iM ;;>Of"" 100,... . ..:J., ' hw~ Fare Increase • The planning process started late • Public comment open Apr 27, SNB Meeting May 29 • Public Hearing May 30 • Proposed range is for a 5 to 9 percent increase • A 7 percent increase generates $4.5 million close to the $4.7 million increase in fuel costs • Riverside to LA fare change at 7 percent -Current $328 monthly pass would go up $23 -Current $23.50 round trip would go up $1.75 5/21/2012 6 • Continuing Agency Reorganization -Search for New CEO -New CFO, Legal Staff, Grants &Finance Department, Security Manager, etc. • Positive Train Control by 2013 • Bike Cars • Quiet Cars • Angels Trains -165 IEOC Riders • 10 Trips Tickets ended May 14 ... ·- -,.- .4, t ~~ ' RCTC Impact • RCTC operating subsidy will depend on the amount of fare increase and timing of implementation • Budget proposes $7.57 million with $2.4 million for new service and contingency • Additional SCRRA funding needs will come back to the Commission • RCTC Rehabilitation capital subsidy of $1.5 million is 4.9 percent share, funded with FTA funds and $250,000 of STA funds • Unique to Riverside, RCTC subsidizes the 5 Riverside County Stations at approximately $2.5 million a year 5/21/2012 7 5/21/2012 8 AGENDA ITEM 14 Agenda Item 14 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 21, 2012 TO: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee FROM: Jillian Edmiston, Staff Analyst Brian Cunanan, Commuter and Motorist Assistance Manager THROUGH: Robert Yates, Multimodal Services Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2012/13 Measure A Commuter Assistance Buspool Subsidy Funding Continuation Requests STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Authorize payment of $1,645/month maximum subsidy per buspool for the period July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013, to the existing Corona, Mira Loma, and Riverside buspools; 2) Require subsidy recipients to meet monthly buspool reporting requirements as supporting documentation to receive payments; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: As part of the Measure A Commuter Assistance Program, the Commission provides funding support to buspools used by Riverside County residents for their commutes along the State Route 91 corridor. The Commission adopted the Measure A buspool subsidy in October 1990 and established a monthly subsidy rate of $1,175 or $25/seat/month in support of commuter buspool operations. In July 2004, the Commission set the subsidy rate at $35/seat/month ($1,645/month) to help offset increases to operational costs during the previous 14 years. To provide additional guidance, the Commission also established a minimum buspool ridership policy in June 1995. The policy requires staff to report to the Commission when a buspool’s ridership falls to 25 or below and to seek direction regarding the continuation of the buspool’s subsidy. Like all commuter assistance incentives provided by the Commission to encourage use of alternative modes of transportation, the Measure A $35/seat/month subsidy is administered as a user end subsidy. The Commission’s subsidy is an important factor that makes buspools an attractive alternative for these commuters with roundtrip commutes in excess of 100 miles. Also, the Commission’s subsidy remains cost-effective compared to the typical public transit subsidy rate of 79 Agenda Item 14 83 percent. While the monthly cost of each buspool varies according to the number of route miles and the resulting negotiated service price, the Commission’s monthly subsidy reflects a subsidy rate of 13 percent. Average Monthly Buspool Fare Per Rider RCTC Subsidy Per Seat Subsidy Rate $260.00 $35.00 13% Unlike some of the other Commission-approved ridesharing incentives that have a limited term, the buspool subsidy is ongoing. To renew its annual subsidy, an existing buspool is required to: • Request in writing, continuation of funding from the Commission for the new fiscal year; • Consistently meet minimum ridership requirements; and • Submit monthly ridership reports throughout the year. The three existing buspools have completed all the requirements for funding as set forth by the Commission including the submittal of monthly ridership reports and annual funding continuation requests. They have consistently exceeded the minimum ridership level of 25 riders per month and have collectively averaged 35 riders/month/buspool this current fiscal year. Buspools Average Riders/Month Roundtrip Distance Annual Miles Saved Annual One-Way Trips Reduced Corona 39 ~134 mi 1,093,404 19,844 Mira Loma 29 ~123 mi 873,840 14,564 Riverside 38 ~110 mi 1,314,773 19,536 Estimated Pounds of Emissions Reduced 31,138 Miles Saved 3,282,017 Trips Reduced 53,944 In reducing the number of vehicles on SR-91 during peak periods, the buspool program saved more than 3.2 million miles and 31,000 pounds of vehicle emissions in FY 2011/12. A fourth buspool, called Riverside 2, was formed in February 2012. Since it has not met the 25-rider minimum, the Riverside 2 buspool has not begun receiving the monthly subsidy from the Commission. The buspool coordinator anticipates achieving a minimum of 25 riders by July 2012, at that time it will be eligible to begin receiving the buspool subsidy. The buspool subsidy proves to be an effective use of Measure A Commuter Assistance funds and a budget of $100,000 is proposed for FY 2012/13. Based 80 Agenda Item 14 on the established monthly $1,645/month per buspool subsidy policy, the funds will support the continuation of the three existing buspools, the new Riverside 2 buspool, and the possibility for one new start-up buspool. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2012/13 Amount: $100,000 Source of Funds: Measure A Budget Adjustment: No GL/Project Accounting No.: 002109 81030 263 41 81002 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 05/10/12 Attachments: 1) Corona Renewal Request 2) Mira Loma Renewal Request 3) Riverside Renewal Request 4) Riverside 2 Startup Request 81 HARLAN ALPERT Send correspondences to: 5522 Sulphur Dr. Mira Loma, CA.91752 April30,2012 Attn.: Brian Cunanan, Commuter Assistance Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, C A 925 02-2208 Dear Mr. Cunanan, In compliance with the requirements of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), I am requesting an extension of funding for the period of July 1,2012 to June 30,2013 for the "Mira Loma" (Mira Loma/Corona) to El Segundo Commuter Buspool. I am the buspool operator and coordinate this buspool independently from any employer. The monthly cost to operate this buspool from Tour Coach is $254.00 per rider. RCTC provides a $35 monthly subsidy per seat and the remaining $219.00 is provided between the riders and their employers. The following is the Mira Loma/Corona Buspool schedule: (Monday - Thursday) (Friday) AM Departure AM Departure AM Anival PM Departure PM Anival PM Arrival Mira Loma 4:10 a.m. Corona Park & Ride Lot 4:25 a.m. El Segundo 5:30 a.m. El Segundo 3:00 p.m. Corona Park & Ride Lot 4:30 p.m. Mira Loma 4:45 p.m. 4:10 a.m. 4:25 a.m. 5:30 a.m. 2:30 p.m. 4:00 p.m. 4:15 p.m. Information on this buspool is available with rideshare programs at Raytheon, Boeing, Aerospace Corporation, and the Los Angeles Air Force base. Employees receive this information through direct mailings, newsletter articles, and electronic messaging from these employers. These employer rideshare programs also share this information with other local employee transportation coordinators. Thank you for your continued support of this successful buspool program. Sincerely, Harlan Alpert Mira Loma Buspool Operator 82 83 84 85 AGENDA ITEM 15 Agenda Item 15 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 21, 2012 TO: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee FROM: Tanya Love, Goods Movement Manager THROUGH: John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Iowa Avenue Grade Separation Project STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Allocate $500,000 in federal Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) funds to the city of Riverside (Riverside) to provide a match, if needed, in support of the Iowa Avenue grade separation project; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Commission adopted a policy in 2001 to provide 10 percent in match funds in support of successful California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Section 190 grade separation projects provided that funding is available. To be eligible, projects must be included in the Commission-approved Alameda Corridor-East (ACE) Grade Crossing Priority list. Riverside was awarded $5 million in CPUC funding for the Iowa Avenue grade separation project and is requesting an allocation of $500,000 from the Commission to serve as match funds. The project does meet the Commission’s eligibility requirement of having been awarded CPUC funds and is listed in the Commission-approved ACE Grade Crossing Priority list. Opening of construction bids for the Iowa Avenue grade crossing is scheduled for May 22, 2012. Due to the favorable bid environment, the $500,000 in CMAQ funds may not be required as bids may come in lower than the engineer’s estimate; however, in order not to delay the project, staff is requesting the CMAQ funding allocation as a back-up measure. 86 Agenda Item 15 Proposed Iowa Avenue Grade Separation In April 2007, the Commission approved an off the top allocation of 25 percent of CMAQ and Surface Transportation Program federal funds for grade separation projects located on the ACE, subject to a use it or lose it provision. As shown on the following table, staff projects that approximately $21.2 million in CMAQ funding will be available for grade separation projects after approval of this allocation: Once built, the project will grade separate the existing Iowa Avenue/Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) at-grade crossing by constructing a four-lane roadway bridge over existing BNSF tracks. The at-grade crossing also carries Union Pacific Railroad freight and Metrolink trains. The total cost of the project is estimated at $32.2 million. There is no impact to the Commission’s budget as CMAQ funding does not flow through the Commission. CMAQ ESTIMATED BEGINNING BALANCE $48,070,041 Grade Separation/Goods Movement Projects Amount Allocated Date Approved by Commission Action Estimated Balance Magnolia Avenue $15,000,000 12/2007 $33,070,041 Iowa Avenue 3,550,000 6/2011 29,520,041 Clay Street 7,500,000 6/2011 22,020,041 Avenue 66 350,000 9/2011 21,670,041 Iowa Avenue 500,000 Pending 21,170,041 87